load_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that Y-up/centimeter environments are rotated and rescaled, that corrections are reported in the response, that bounds and floor_height are returned for object placement, and that prim_path has specific default behavior. It even warns not to assume prim_path and explains how clear_scene can remove the loaded environment.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: prerequisite, fuzzy matching, correction behavior, response fields, prim_path guidance, and parameter semantics. The critical behavioral facts are front-loaded before the Args section, and there is no 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?

For a tool with an output schema and a single required parameter, the description is complete for invocation. It tells the agent what to do first, what corrections may be applied, what the response contains, and how the default prim_path behaves. No critical invocation detail appears missing.

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, and it does for the two main parameters. It defines 'environment' as a name or search term with examples, and explains prim_path's default, rationale, and relationship to clear_scene. The remaining parameters, command_id and idempotency_key, are left undocumented, though their titles and optional defaults make them broadly self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Load a pre-built environment into the scene.' It also calls out 'fuzzy matching' and tells the agent to call list_environments first, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like load_usd or import_urdf. Without opening schemas, the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Call list_environments first to see available options.' It conveys the context of loading pre-built environments, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like load_usd or import_urdf. The context is clear, but exclusions are only implied rather than stated.

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