set_joint_positions

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 discloses that the tool operates via ArticulationAction, uses specific units (radians/meters), and interacts with other tools. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., out-of-range joints) or side effects beyond setting positions. Still, it provides sufficient behavioral context for a simulation tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for units, usage, and arguments. It front-loads the main action and provides essential details without unnecessary verbosity. Minor redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'joint positions' twice) but overall efficient.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to cover return values. It adequately covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter behavior, and post-conditions. Some details about error handling or validation are missing, but the description is sufficiently complete for effective tool usage.

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 prim_path as the robot's prim path, joint_positions as a list of target values, and joint_indices as optional for selecting specific joints. It adds meaning by specifying units and prerequisites (use get_robot_info). While not exhaustive, it adds significant value beyond 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 the tool's purpose: 'Set target joint positions on a robot via ArticulationAction.' It specifies the action (set), resource (joint positions), and mechanism (ArticulationAction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_joint_positions and step_simulation.

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 usage guidelines: it instructs users to first call get_robot_info to discover joint names, types, and limits, and after setting positions, to use step_simulation to advance and observe results. It also warns against using play_simulation with sleep. This clearly defines when and how to use the tool.

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