get_locomotion_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states what is returned (stride cycle, ground contact rules, center of mass behavior, common animation errors, tail dynamics) and that unsupported patterns are reported rather than substituted. However, it does not explicitly describe safety, side effects, permissions, or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then structured into Args and Returns. It is efficient, though the Args block partly repeats parameter names that already appear in the schema.

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 tool is small and the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, output contents, and error-like behavior for unsupported gait patterns. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values in full, but it does. The main missing context is when to choose this tool versus nearby constraint or blueprint tools.

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. It does so by documenting all three parameters, including allowed leg_type values, the meaning of has_tail, and conditional gait values for quadrupeds versus bipeds.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: get locomotion physics constraints for a given leg type and gait. It is clearly distinct from the other tools in this domain, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against nearby siblings like get_rig_constraints or get_skeleton_blueprint.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter-specific contexts: leg type and gait determine the constraints. The note that unsupported patterns are reported rather than substituted clarifies behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative tools.

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