get_robot_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns joint names ordered by DOF index, joint types, and limits with units, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires a valid robot prim, or what happens if the prim path is invalid. The return format is partially covered by the output schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage timing and return details. The Args section is minimal but acceptable. It earns its place with no wasted words, though the return details could be slightly more structured.

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 has an output schema and only one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to call it, and the meaning of the parameter. It doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites beyond the create_robot hint, but for a simple read-only info tool, this is adequate.

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 explains that prim_path is 'The prim path of the robot', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title. It doesn't clarify what a valid prim path looks like, how to obtain one, or whether it should point to a robot root or a specific link. The description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('robot joint information'), and enumerates the exact content returned (names, DOF count, joint types, limits). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_joint_positions and get_joint_config by focusing on kinematic structure rather than state or configuration.

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 says to call this after create_robot to understand the robot's kinematic structure, which gives clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance and the focus on kinematic structure imply when it is appropriate relative to siblings like get_joint_positions.

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