get_joint_states

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: units (radians, metres, per-second velocities), a failure mode while stopped, and the Isaac Sim 6.2 dependency. Only the return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and keeps to a few efficient sentences. The parenthetical unit caveat is dense but earns its place by preventing a degrees/radians mistake.

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 single-param reader with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (units, sim-state precondition, dependency). Return format is legitimately left to the output schema, so nothing critical is absent.

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?

With a single prim_path parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the argument. The description adds nothing about prim_path beyond what the schema already states (root prim, example path), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (joint positions and velocities) with unit semantics, and explicitly distinguishes itself from set_joint_targets. An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from the setter sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the operative condition (works while sim plays or is paused; errors while stopped) and names the alternative set_joint_targets with its differing unit convention (degrees). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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