get_retargeter_op_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only (no save)' while adding 'live settings struct' framing and the FJsonObjectConverter key-lowercasing convention. It adds real context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover error/out-of-range behavior.

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 core purpose, then adds the key-naming convention and a compact Returns block. It's dense but every sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical examples are justified given the unusual key casing.

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, the inline Returns object is a strong compensating addition, and the key-naming convention fills a real gap. Minor omissions remain (out-of-range handling, whether settings can be empty for ops without settings), keeping it from a 5.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (0-based op_index, content path). The description restates 'by op index' but adds no new syntax or constraints for the parameters themselves; its extra detail is about the returned op_type/settings keys.

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) plus the exact resource (one retarget op's live settings struct) and the scope (by op_index from an IK Retargeter). It further distinguishes itself from get_ik_retargeter_info by contrasting the two op_type meanings, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a 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?

Gives a clear context for use (fetch a single op's settings by index) and explicitly contrasts its op_type field with get_ik_retargeter_info.ops[].op_type, which routes confusion between the two tools. It doesn't state exclusions such as 'do not use for op lists' as a hard rule, so it falls just short of 5.

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