get_actual_tcp_pose

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'get' which suggests read-only behavior. It does not disclose coordinate system, units, or required preconditions (e.g., connection to robot). The minimal description fails to convey behavioral traits beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short lines. It front-loads the purpose and includes the parameter hint, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't mention the return format (e.g., cartesian coordinates with xyz and orientation). The description provides the core purpose but lacks enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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%, so the description adds some meaning by explaining that 'ip' is the robot address ('IP：机器人地址'). However, it doesn't specify format or constraints, only slightly exceeding the schema's type-only 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 clearly states the tool gets the current TCP position of a robot specified by IP. It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (当前TCP位置), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_actual_joint_pose or get_actual_robot_current.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose implies usage for retrieving TCP position of a specific robot, but no exclusions or context are provided.

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