get_ik_solver_details

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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds meaningful error behavior (out-of-range solver_index, rig load failure) and enumerates the return shape despite no output schema. It does not cover unrelated traits like permissions or performance limits, but for a local editor read operation the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 the core action and resource, then adds error behavior, alternatives, and return shape in compact form. Every sentence carries weight, and there is no repetitive or filler content.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile, schema coverage is complete, and the description supplies the missing return shape and explicit sibling routing. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 already documented, so the schema does the primary work. The description reinforces that solver_index is a 0-based stack index, but most of its added detail (solver_type example, unique_name format, goal fields) describes outputs rather than input parameter meaning.

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) and resource (one solver of an IK Rig asset) and identifies the exact fields returned. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the alternatives for bones, settings, and whole-rig info, 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 explicitly names when to use this tool versus get_ik_solver_bones, get_ik_solver_settings, and get_ik_rig_info, and it states error conditions for an out-of-range index or an unloadable rig. This is direct usage guidance with alternatives, not merely implied context.

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