get_joint_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It establishes that this is a read operation, specifies units (radians/meters), and clarifies joint ordering via get_robot_info. These details meaningfully describe behavior beyond a mere 'read positions' statement, though it does not discuss failure modes or command_id/idempotency behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by short high-value clarifications (units, ordering, and the step-and-read alternative). Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it reads, units, ordering, and the preferred alternative for combined step-and-read. The optional parameters are left unexplained, but they appear to be generic API concerns rather than tool-specific semantics, so the description is still largely sufficient.

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 only restates prim_path as 'The prim path of the robot,' which adds little beyond the property name/title, and it does not explain command_id or idempotency_key at all. The description fails to provide meaningful semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 the action ('Read current joint positions') and the resource ('a robot'), making the core purpose immediately understandable. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the closely related sibling get_joint_state, but the focus on 'positions' is specific enough to avoid confusion with setter tools.

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 an explicit usage alternative: 'For a combined step-and-read, prefer step_simulation with observe_joints.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool. It does not enumerate all sibling comparisons, but it provides clear context for the most relevant alternative decision.

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