get_ik_solver_bones

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: out-of-range solver_index and rig load failures are errors, and some solver types return 'None' for end_bone. It also provides the return shape, which is absent from structured output.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose, then follows with error behavior, an edge case, sibling routing, and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the Returns block compensates for the missing output schema without excess.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return structure, error semantics, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly appears absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning by specifying that solver_index is a 0-based position in the solver stack and that out-of-range values error. It does not elaborate on ik_rig_path beyond the schema's own description, so it is better than baseline but not exhaustive.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), specific resource ('start and end bone of one solver in an IK Rig asset'), and the selector ('0-based position in the solver stack'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_ik_solver_details and set_ik_solver_bones, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context and alternatives: read here for start/end bones, use get_ik_solver_details for type/enabled/goals, and set_ik_solver_bones to write. It also states error conditions (out-of-range index, rig load failure), leaving no ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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