Validate URDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about what checks are performed and that results are returned by severity, but it lacks detail on the output format (e.g., fields in each issue) and does not mention performance or parsing requirements.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and what is checked, and the second briefly mentions the output format. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations), the description is mostly complete. However, the output schema is missing, and the description only says 'issues by severity' without specifying the structure of each issue (e.g., severity level, message, location). This gap reduces completeness for an agent needing to parse the result.

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 single parameter 'urdf' is well-described in the schema ('The URDF XML text.'). The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond stating it checks 'a URDF'. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it checks a URDF for structural problems, listing specific areas like kinematic tree, inertia sanity, joint limits, and parser-divergence pitfalls. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspect_urdf' by focusing on validation rather than general inspection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'robosim_inspect_urdf'. The description does not specify when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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