get_physics_joint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states the read verb plus the field list. It does not disclose prerequisites (loaded scene or articulation), failure behavior for invalid joint_path values, or whether this reads simulation state versus authored definition, though the property list subtly hints at definition-level data. This is minimal coverage for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 with zero filler: the verb leads, and every listed field contributes information. It is appropriately sized for the amount of content it conveys and contains nothing that wastes an agent's attention.

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 zero annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and a large sibling set with several near-overlapping getters, a one-line description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool reliably. The output schema covers return values, which helps, but the missing param semantics, prerequisite context, and sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps.

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, but it never mentions joint_path, command_id, or idempotency_key. It provides no meaning for the required joint_path (path format, scene-relative vs absolute) and leaves the two optional parameters entirely unexplained. The field list describes the output, not the parameters, so essentially no additional semantic value is added over the bare schema types.

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 a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('physics joint') and enumerates the exact properties returned (type, body targets, frames, axis, limits, units), which clearly distinguishes it from write operations like create_physics_joint and from state-oriented getters like get_joint_state or get_joint_positions. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so an agent still faces some ambiguity against get_joint_config and get_physics_body, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many overlapping sibling getters (get_joint_state, get_joint_config, get_joint_positions, get_physics_state, get_prim_info). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so an agent navigating ~100 siblings must infer selection from the name alone.

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