get_lidar_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and 'effective' vs USD schema values adds some output nuance, but there is no mention of failure behavior, path requirements, or side-effect profile beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 a single concise sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler. Every listed item adds specific, useful information about what the tool reads.

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 all-optional-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output scope. However, it leaves parameter mapping and usage-vs-alternatives to inference, so the agent is not fully equipped to decide when and how to call it without additional reasoning.

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%, and the description does not explain prim_path, command_id, or idempotency_key. It only implies the target is a LiDAR prim, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Read' with a specific resource — effective LiDAR configuration values — and enumerates the exact fields returned (FOV, angular resolution, rate, range, USD schema values). This clearly distinguishes it from data-producing siblings like get_lidar_point_cloud.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_lidar_point_cloud, create_lidar, or get_camera_calibration. The description implies a read-only config lookup but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection conditions.

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