get_physics_state

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It conveys that this is a read-only diagnostic operation by stating 'Diagnostic tool' and describing return values. It does not discuss permissions or performance, but the read-only nature is sufficiently transparent.

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 (four sentences) with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes meaning, with 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter. Minor gaps (e.g., prerequisites like physics enabled) exist but do not severely hinder 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?

The single parameter 'prim_path' is given semantic meaning as 'USD path to the prim to inspect', which adds value beyond the bare schema (which had no description). This is clear and helpful.

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 it is a diagnostic tool that gets physics state for a prim, listing specific return fields (rigid body status, mass, velocities, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_prim_info and get_robot_info by focusing on physics-specific diagnostics.

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 provides explicit scenarios for when to use the tool (objects falling through ground, not moving, grasping failures). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for guidance.

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