sim_marketplace_info_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral load. It is transparent about the operation's nature ('Get', 'Returns'), discloses exactly what is returned, and even specifies the JSON response envelope with success, message, and model fields. There are no hidden side effects, transformers, or unexpected behaviors implied.

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, easy to use, and free of filler. Every section earns its place: a one-sentence purpose, a compact list of returned fields, the expected return format, and two representative examples. The inclusion of the return format and examples makes it self-contained without becoming verbose.

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 a single required parameter, an embedded output format, explicit examples, and a clear model-specific scope, all information needed to correctly invoke the tool is present. The tool also has a declared output schema, so the description does not need to over-explain return values; it already does enough for an agent to decide, call, and interpret the response. The only slight omission is explicit sibling routing, but the description's focus on 'specific model' is sufficient in context.

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 already fully describes model_id as a slug with examples, so the description does not need to add much. The description's examples mirror the schema's existing examples and provide no deeper parameter semantics. This is a baseline case where the schema carries the weight; the description does not degrade or improve it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Get full metadata for a specific robot model from the marketplace.' It also enumerates the exact content returned (MJCF/URDF paths, sim backends, joint/actuator counts, source URLs), so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sim_marketplace_search_tool, which is about discovery rather than lookup.

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 supplies clear context: the tool operates on a known model_id and returns its metadata. The examples reinforce the usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly mention 'use sim_marketplace_search_tool instead if you do not know the model ID' or otherwise state exclusions, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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