get_joint_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains units and joint order, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. The name implies reading, but more explicit behavioral context would improve 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 four concise sentences plus an Args line, each serving a purpose: purpose, units/order, alternative, and parameter description. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, units, joint order, and recommended alternative. Could be considered complete, though a clear read-only statement would enhance completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly describes prim_path as 'The prim path of the robot.' but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or how to obtain it. Minimal added value over the schema.

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 'Read current joint positions from a robot.', specifying a verb (Read) and resource (joint positions). It adds units and joint order details, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool step_simulation with observe_joints.

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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'For a combined step-and-read, prefer step_simulation with observe_joints.' This guides when to use this tool vs. a sibling, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' beyond that.

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