get_physics_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' communicates non-mutating behavior, and 'authored' clarifies it returns set values rather than computed physics state. But it does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, or side effects, though for a simple getter this is a minor gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what is read with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

The tool is a straightforward getter, the output schema exists, and the description names all returned property groups. It lacks mention of optional parameter roles and usage context, but these are either self-evident or covered by schema structure. Overall it is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 for parameter meaning, but it does not mention prim_path, command_id, or idempotency_key at all. The only hint is the self-descriptive prim_path name; no additional semantics are provided for the required or optional 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource: 'authored rigid body, collider, approximation, mass and density.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like configure_physics_body and from state-level readers like get_physics_state.

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 verb 'Read' implies this tool is for inspecting authored physics-body properties, and the listed fields make the domain clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_physics_state or get_collision_group, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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