get_joint_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly marks the operation as a read, details the returned fields, explains selector mutuality, and provides explicit units for revolute and prismatic joints. It omits edge-case behavior such as errors from invalid selectors, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents, selector constraints, units, and an Args block. Every sentence carries meaningful information without 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not re-explain return structure. It covers the main inputs, subset selection, and units. Minor gaps remain around undocumented generic parameters and error behavior, but the tool is substantially complete for correct invocation.

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 supply parameter meaning. It does so for prim_path, joint_names, and joint_indices, adding specifics like case-sensitivity, order, DOF indices, and unit conventions. It leaves command_id and idempotency_key undocumented, but these are generic execution parameters whose purpose is largely inferable from their names.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Read measured joint state and active command targets.' The return list further clarifies what is included, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_joint_positions or get_joint_config.

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 clear guidance on selecting a subset via joint_names or joint_indices and notes that the selectors are mutually exclusive. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_joint_positions or get_joint_config.

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