get_actual_joint_pose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves current joint angles, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, real-time vs. cached data, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 concise with two short sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter meaning. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence 'IP：机器人地址' is somewhat redundant as it repeats the parameter name without adding much new value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., array of angles, units), error handling, or dependencies like robot connectivity. For a tool in a robotics context with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'ip' parameter is '机器人地址' (robot address), which clarifies its purpose, but the schema already has a title 'Ip' and type 'string'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates slightly by explaining the parameter's role, but doesn't add format details (e.g., IP format) or examples. Baseline is 3 due to low parameter count.

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 verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the resource '指定IP机器人的当前关节角度' (current joint angles of a specified IP robot), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like get_actual_tcp_pose (which gets TCP pose) or get_joint_temperatures (which gets temperatures), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., robot must be connected), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like get_actual_tcp_pose for pose data. The context is implied (when joint angles are needed), but no explicit usage rules are given.

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