get_skeleton_asset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial behavioral limit that only the first 10 bone names are returned and inline return-shape details, which is real value beyond the annotations. Minor deduction because it restates 'Read-only', which the annotations already carry, and does not mention pagination or failure modes.

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 summary contents, followed by the key cap/alternative and then the return shape. Sentences are short and mostly earn their place, though 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations and the Returns block is dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the full return structure inline (asset_path, counts, bone lists, virtual bone objects), making the tool's output fully predictable. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including an example path format), the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for skeleton_path beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (a USkeleton asset summary) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: bone_count, first 10 bone names, virtual bones with source/target, slot_group_count, socket_count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_skeleton_info by the bone-name cap, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

The description names the alternative (get_skeleton_info with load_full_data true) and the exact condition that selects it (up to 100 bone names vs the 10 returned here). That is explicit when-to-use-the-other guidance with no inference required.

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