get_joint_docs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not confirm that the call is read-only, describe side effects (even the absence of them), or mention ordering or scope; it only lists output fields. 'get' in the tool name hints at safety, but the description does not.

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 extremely compact and contains no filler; every word names a meaningful piece of data. It is slightly fragile because it is a subject-less fragment, but it earns its length.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema, the field list is useful and return values are covered by the schema. However, the description does not state what set of joints it covers, when to use it, or how it differs from get_joints, leaving some inference to the agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about arguments. Baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 names a specific resource (joint docs) and lists the fields it exposes (name, parent, child, and rotated parts). It is clear enough once combined with the 'get_' verb in the tool name, but it never explicitly states 'returns' or contrasts with sibling get_joints, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance about when to call this tool rather than get_joints or any other sibling. The description is a bare field list with no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision context.

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