get_ik_rig_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the aggregate-only nature of solvers and the full shape of what is returned, though it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid ik_rig_path.

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 the read scope in one sentence, then the exclusion/routing note, then the return contract. The returns block is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to carry that information. Minimal waste.

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 and a single-parameter schema, the description supplies everything missing: the exact return shape, the counts, and the goal/chain structure. An agent can call and consume this tool without further documentation.

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% for the single required parameter (ik_rig_path, documented as the UIKRigDefinition asset path). The description adds no path semantics, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (IK Rig asset) and enumerates the scope: skeletal mesh, solver count, every goal and retarget chain. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_ik_solver_details, which is the sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with. No ambiguity about what comes back.

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?

Gives a clear usage signal ('Read-only; solvers are counted, not listed') and routes to get_ik_solver_details for per-solver data. It does not, however, mention the sibling detail tools get_ik_goal_settings or get_ik_retarget_chain_details, which cover the goals and chains this tool only summarizes.

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