getJoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get multiple Joints by IDs' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, error handling for invalid IDs, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence: 'Get multiple Joints by IDs'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and input.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Joint' is, the expected return format, error conditions, or usage context. For a tool in a server with many sibling tools, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without additional 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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'ids' parameter documented as 'Joint identifiers'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it merely restates that IDs are used to get joints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('multiple Joints by IDs'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listJoints' (which likely lists all joints) and 'getJoints' (which retrieves specific ones by ID). However, it doesn't specify what a 'Joint' is in this context, leaving some ambiguity about the resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'listJoints' or 'getJoints' (if that's a different tool). The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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