get_physics_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses velocity units, warns that velocities are zero until the simulation advances, and explains the diagnostic intent. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, though 'Diagnostic tool' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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: purpose, returned data, units, timing caveat, usage scenarios, and argument summary. Every section adds usable information, and the layout makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, units, timing behavior, and primary parameter, which is complete enough for a simple diagnostic getter. It does not mention limitations or alternatives, but the output schema fills in return-structure details.

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%, but the description documents the only required parameter, prim_path, as a USD path to inspect. It does not explain command_id or idempotency_key, but these are optional standard parameters and less critical for correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as a diagnostic getter for physics state and enumerates the exact returned fields (rigid body status, mass, velocities, kinematic flag, collision info). It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like get_physics_body or get_prim_info.

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 'Call this when' section gives concrete diagnostic scenarios (falling through ground, unexpected non-movement, grasping failures), which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this tool.

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