get_transform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by specifying the returned data shape, including the non-obvious quaternion component ordering [w,x,y,z] and that distances are in scene units, which is genuinely useful behavioral detail for interpreting results.

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 dense sentence with the verb and payload front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the list of returned fields is packed tightly enough that the frame-selection behavior is silently omitted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe return values, but it stops short of explaining the frame parameter, its default, or what 'track key state' actually reports. For a two-parameter read tool this is adequate but has a clear gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies 'object' as a 'unique object name', but the 'frame' parameter (0-10000) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned: world position in scene units, rotation quaternion with component order [w,x,y,z], and track key state. The 'world' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_local_transform, but it never names or contrasts with its closest siblings (get_global_transform, get_pose).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_local_transform or get_global_transform for non-world-space reads. The agent must infer selection criteria purely from the tool name.

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