get_runtime_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly guarantees that the tool never starts, stops, mutates Isaac Sim, or replays a failed command. This is exactly the kind of safety-relevant behavior an agent needs to know before invoking a diagnostic tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences deliver the core behavior and the key operational context with no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second adds availability and safety guarantees.

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 purpose, availability, and safety, and an output schema is present to describe return values. However, the undocumented optional parameters create a real gap: without any explanation of command_id or idempotency_key, the agent lacks enough information to use the tool fully 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%, and the two optional parameters, command_id and idempotency_key, are entirely unexplained in the description. The agent cannot infer what these parameters mean or how they affect the returned status, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 first sentence clearly identifies a specific read operation ('Read supervisor, crash, restart, and protocol-health state') and a distinguishing condition ('without requiring Isaac Sim'). This separates it from simulation-state siblings like get_simulation_state, and the name/title is not merely restated.

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 states a clear when-to-use condition: it works without Isaac Sim and remains available when the extension socket is closed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it is the diagnostic choice when the simulation socket is unavailable.

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