get_bone_transform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds material context beyond that: the transform is parent-relative rather than component space, and the read is lossless with respect to set_bone_transform because both operate on the same raw ref-pose array. It does not discuss error behavior when the bone is absent, beyond the 'found' flag in the return shape.

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 scoping constraint and sibling relationship are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return shape is compactly enumerated. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the returns list is somewhat verbose for a tool whose output is already predictable from the field names.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (asset_path, bone_name, bone_index, found, location, rotation, scale, bone_count, op), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. Combined with the read-only annotations and the sibling relationship, nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented (bone_name, skeleton_path), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'the bone to read' and 'the USkeleton asset' already present. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (bone's LOCAL reference-pose transform) with a precise scope qualifier: 'parent-relative, not component space.' It also distinguishes itself against the sibling set_bone_transform by declaring itself its exact inverse, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the counterpart tool (set_bone_transform) and describes the read-modify-write round trip, which is the main usage context. It does not, however, rule out other bone-inspection siblings such as get_rig_hierarchy or get_skeleton_info, so when-not-to-use is left implicit.

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