get_local_transform

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one meaningful behavioral nuance, 'actual', suggesting it reads the evaluated current value rather than a keyframed/declared transform, but does not elaborate on that distinction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the essential scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to be cryptic for an unfamiliar agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only getter with annotations covering safety, the description conveys what is returned (position/quaternion) and the coordinate space, and there is no output schema to explain. It still leaves gaps around the required 'object' argument and the meaning of 'actual', so it is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it clarifies that 'frame' defaults to the current frame, but says nothing about the required 'object' parameter (format, expected identifier) beyond the name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a precisely scoped resource ('actual parent-relative position/quaternion'), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_transform and get_global_transform by naming the coordinate space. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'default current' gives useful calling context for the frame parameter, implying the tool is used to inspect a pose at a given or current time. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_transform, get_global_transform, or get_pose, so usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.