get_skeleton_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine context by enumerating return fields, including failure signals (loaded_successfully, is_valid, load_error) and the bones_truncated cap, which tells the agent the call may partially fail. It stops short of stating permissions or the performance cost of loading full data, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 one-line purpose before the return-shape block, and the structured field list is scannable. It is somewhat long for a two-parameter getter, but every listed field carries real information in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no nested objects, the enumerated return fields are a useful and appropriate addition, and the description is largely complete for a read-only metadata getter. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the confusingly similar get_skeleton_asset_info sibling, which an agent cannot resolve from the description alone.

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 skeleton_name (with its flexible resolution and ambiguity-error behavior) and load_full_data (with its 100-bone cap). The description only restates 'optional full bone/socket/slot data', adding nothing the schema does not already carry. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy 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 and resource ('Retrieve metadata and optional full bone/socket/slot data for a Skeleton asset'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling get_skeleton_asset_info or the related get_skeletal_mesh_info, leaving an agent to guess which is the right getter.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the load_full_data trade-off (e.g. cost of loading), and no pointer to alternatives like get_skeleton_asset_info or is_skeleton_shared. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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