get_joint_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly labels the tool as a 'Diagnostic tool' and describes its return behavior, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly guarantee no mutation or describe failure modes, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a concise return list, three diagnostic trigger bullets, and the key argument. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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, an output schema is present, and sibling tools exist, the description covers purpose, return data, diagnostic use cases, and the required argument. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for the required prim_path parameter ('USD path to the robot articulation root'), which is the critical input. The optional command_id and idempotency_key are undocumented, but their names and defaults make them self-explanatory in context.

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?

Description opens with 'Diagnostic tool: get joint drive configuration for a robot articulation' and enumerates the exact returned fields: stiffness, damping, limits, target vs actual positions, and position error. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_joint_drive_config or get_joint_positions.

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?

Provides three concrete, symptom-driven trigger conditions ('Call this when: joint drives not tracking, oscillating, hitting limits'), which is strong practical guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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