list_available_robots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating that the list is auto-discovered at startup and reflects actual assets in the current Isaac Sim version, signaling that this is a read-only, environment-dependent query rather than a live network request.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool lists, what it returns, and a key behavioral caveat. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 is sufficient for a simple list/read tool and is aided by an output schema. It clearly conveys source, scope, and the startup discovery behavior. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to refresh_robot_library for updating the list, but this is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for two parameters, and the description does not explain command_id or idempotency_key at all. Since the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation and does not, an agent gains no semantic understanding of these optional fields from the tool definition.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all available robots'), and the source ('Isaac Sim asset server'). It also names the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from robot-specific or refresh tools.

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 implies that this tool should be used to inspect which robot assets are actually available before selecting or creating one, especially by noting auto-discovery at startup. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over siblings like refresh_robot_library or list_nvidia_assets, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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