close_gripper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'immediate target read-back,' hinting at a non-waiting return behavior, but does not explain blocking, error behavior, prerequisites, or other side effects of closing the gripper.

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 one-sentence description is tightly written and front-loads the action with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the target width source, and the immediate read-back behavior.

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?

This is a state-changing robot command with four input parameters and no annotations, so the description must cover prim_path and command/idempotency semantics. It does not, leaving an agent unable to fully determine how to target the gripper or how the command lifecycle works. The existence of an output schema helps with return values but not with input semantics.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the parameters but only relates 'profile' to the declared closed width. prim_path, command_id, and idempotency_key receive no explanation beyond their schema titles, leaving key operational details unclear.

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 verb 'close' plus 'gripper' names the action and object, and 'profile's declared closed width' adds a specific mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it from open_gripper and set_gripper_width siblings.

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 gives a clear closing context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over open_gripper or set_gripper_width, nor does it mention exclusions. An agent can infer the usage from the word 'close', but the guidance is not fully explicit.

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