get_joint_limits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Query') but does not explain behavior in edge cases (e.g., empty joint_name), return semantics, or any side effects. It adds some context by specifying 'physical and soft limits' and units, but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function and key details. There is no unnecessary information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 query tool, the description provides adequate context but leaves gaps. It does not clarify the behavior when parameters are omitted (defaults are empty strings) or how the output is structured, though the presence of an output schema mitigates this. The lack of annotations and parameter explanations reduces completeness.

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% as the input schema only shows parameter names and defaults. The description does not explain the meaning or expected values of 'joint_name' and 'robot_type'. Although the tool's purpose hints at a joint identifier and robot selection, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('URDF physical and soft joint limits'), elaborating on the details (lower/upper rad, effort, velocity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recover_gazebo_joints by focusing on querying limits rather than modifying them.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving joint limits but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when this tool is preferred over others, but the straightforward query nature makes usage reasonably clear.

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