Duck state sample

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it states 'Read-only and always safe to call', clarifies the gravity vector interpretation (including fall detection), and explains the safety flags. This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output semantics.

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 clause earns its place: it front-loads the core 'one frame' concept, lists the important fields, adds interpretation guidance, and closes with usage direction and a sibling reference. No filler words or redundant phrasing.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It does both thoroughly, including interpretation of potentially ambiguous fields (gravity, safety flags) and a clear relationship to duck_health. Nothing essential is 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 states that this tool returns one robot.state frame and enumerates its contents (policy, velocity requested vs applied, joints, gravity, odometry, safety flags). It differentiates itself from duck_health by explicitly redirecting battery/temperature queries, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 concrete use cases: confirming a walk moved the robot and checking posture before/after a behavior. It also explicitly names an alternative (duck_health) for a different concern, establishing 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.