get_ik_bone_settings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the key-shape variance per solver (snake_case FullBodyIK keys vs generic camelCase StretchLimb) and the `note` fallback for unsupported solvers — real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then solver-specific serialization detail, then the return shape. The parenthetical enumerations are information-dense and earn their place, though the middle sentence is somewhat heavy for a reader scanning for the core action.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned object shape and, importantly, flagging that the `settings` object's contents differ by solver type and that unsupported solvers return a `note`. That covers the edge cases an agent must anticipate.

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%, so all three parameters (ik_rig_path, solver_index, bone_name) are already documented. The description reinforces that settings are scoped to a specific bone in a specific solver but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get bone-specific settings for a bone within a solver.' It distinctly separates this from the solver-level sibling (get_ik_solver_settings) by emphasizing per-bone granularity, and it names the two solver types that actually have per-bone settings.

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?

It clearly states the applicability condition ('Only FullBodyIK and StretchLimb support per-bone settings; others return a `note`'), which tells the agent when this call is meaningful. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool to use for solver-level settings, so routing to a sibling is left implicit.

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