get_retarget_poses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, the description adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing the return structure (per-bone quat deltas, root translation offsets) and the quat key convention shared with the setter.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape. Sentences are tight, though 'Read-only' repeats the annotations and the inline return block, while justified in the absence of an output schema, makes it longer than strictly minimal.

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 rich annotations, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by describing the returned object and its nested bone rotation structure. Coverage is strong; only minor relational context (e.g. how source/target chains map to the asset) is 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ik_retargeter_path as a content path. The description adds no further syntax or format detail about the parameter, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the lifting.

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 (List) and resource (retarget poses of an IK Retargeter), and pins down scope: both source and target poses, with root translation delta and per-bone rotation deltas. The reference to set_retarget_pose_bone_rotation as the counterpart setter implicitly distinguishes it from mutating siblings.

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?

The read-only framing and the pointer to set_retarget_pose_bone_rotation imply this is the inspection/read side of the retarget-pose pair, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as get_ik_retargeter_info or get_retargeter_op_info.

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