get_robot_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it ('Get', 'Pure USD') while adding a genuinely non-obvious trait: it works without a running simulation because it reads USD data directly. It does not mention performance, caching, or failure modes when the prim is not a robot.

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?

Two short clauses, zero filler, with the output fields front-loaded and the sim-independence caveat second. Every word earns its place.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema that covers return values. Description supplies the field list and the no-simulation constraint, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% with a concrete example ("/World/G1"), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no meaning about what prim_path must point to (robot root vs. articulation root) beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get robot joint info') followed by an enumeration of the returned fields (names, types, limits, DOF count). 'Pure USD, no sim needed' implicitly separates it from get_joint_states / get_sim_state, though it never names the sibling.

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?

'Pure USD, no sim needed' implies the condition for choosing this over a simulation-state tool, but usage is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no named alternative.

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