get_robot_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no movement is commanded, which reinforces rather than duplicates the annotation, but it omits latency, whether it requires the robot to be enabled/calibrated, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key constraint (no movement) is stated immediately.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and 'calibrated motor positions' is vague—no mention of units, per-joint structure, or freshness of the reading. Adequate but incomplete for a state-query tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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 read operation ('read calibrated motor positions') and the parenthetical 'no intentional movement' distinguishes it from the move_* siblings. It's clear what resource is accessed, though the exact return shape (joint angles vs. raw counts) isn't pinned down.

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 'no intentional movement' note implies this is the passive/observation tool versus the move_joints and move_to_pose siblings, but it never explicitly says when to call it (e.g., before planning a motion) or that it should be used instead of motion commands for observation.

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