inspect_robot_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly notes 'It never runs xacro or ROS' and explains the differing outputs for URDF and Xacro ('explicitly unexpanded'), providing critical behavioral context beyond basic function.

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 sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds value (static nature, file type, return summary, no execution).

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 single-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers scope, behavior, and return expectations. It explains what is returned for both URDF and Xacro, and confirms no side effects, making it complete for the intended use.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to 'relative_path' by specifying it is workspace-relative and for a single URDF/Xacro file. This helps an agent understand the path's context, though it lacks examples or further format constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Statically inspect one workspace-relative URDF or Xacro file' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (scan_workspace, inspect_package, etc.) by focusing on a single robot description file.

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 gives clear context that this is for a single file (not workspace-wide) and is static. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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