ros2_lookup_tf

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

The description says 'Lookup' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything. It also does not disclose behavior when frames are missing, the meaning of the timeout in practice (e.g., if it throws an error on timeout), or whether the lookup might block. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to provide sufficient detail about side effects or error conditions.

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 the primary action front-loaded in the first line, followed by a clean list of parameter definitions. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for an agent.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and all parameters, and an output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It is largely complete for a simple lookup tool. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active TF tree) or potential failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to make a reasonable call.

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 description provides meaning for all three parameters, including concrete examples: target_frame: 'Target coordinate frame (e.g. 'odom' or 'map')', source_frame: 'Source coordinate frame (e.g. 'base_link' or 'camera_link')', and timeout_sec: 'Timeout in seconds'. This adds significant value over the input schema, which has zero description coverage. However, it does not clarify the direction of the transform (e.g., whether it returns the transform from source to target or target to source), which could lead to ambiguity.

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 function: 'Lookup geometric coordinate transform between two frames from ROS2 TF tree.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all deal with topics, services, actions, or node/parameter inspection. An agent can immediately identify the purpose and differentiate it from ros2_topic_echo or ros2_call_service.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the action itself. However, the sibling tool list (topics, services, actions, etc.) makes it implicitly clear that this is the only TF-related tool, so an agent could infer its use for coordinate transforms. Still, there is no explicit 'use this when you need the pose of a frame relative to another' or any exclusions.

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