get_ik_goal_settings

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: divergent key casing per solver (snake_case for FullBodyIK, camelCase for BodyMover) and fallback `note` responses for unconnected goals or solvers without per-goal settings. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then qualification, then return shape. The inline key enumerations are dense but each serves the per-solver serialization caveat. Slightly heavy for a single read tool, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies a Returns shape (ik_rig_path, solver_index, goal_name, settings) and explains the varying structure of `settings`, plus edge-case notes. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get goal-specific settings for a goal connected to a solver') and immediately distinguishes behavior across solver types (FullBodyIK vs BodyMover, and solvers without per-goal settings). An agent can tell this apart from get_ik_solver_settings and set_ik_goal_settings without opening any 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?

States an explicit prerequisite: the goal must be connected via connect_ik_goal_to_solver first, and names that sibling. It also implies the boundary condition (solvers without per-goal settings return a note), but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_ik_solver_settings.

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