read_joint

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It does not mention that joint_name defaults to all joints (though the schema does), what happens when the scene or joint is missing, or what format the returned config takes. The description adds no insights beyond the tool's basic function.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context for an agent: it omits the default behavior for joint_name (only in schema), the return format, and any error conditions. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps make the description incomplete for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented there. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only indicating the domain ('physics joint config') without elaborating on the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 reads a physics joint config in a scene, with the verb 'Read' and the specific resource 'physics joint config'. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like read_scene or list_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_joints for discovering joint names or read_scene for broader scene inspection. The description only states what it does, leaving selection to the agent.

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