inspect_pose_search_database

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the content scope of the walk and a field-level return list, which structured data does not supply. No pagination or sizing behavior is described, but the return enumeration is genuine added context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one clause, followed by a compact return-field enumeration with no filler. The brace-delimited field list is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (schema_path, animation_assets[], channels[], etc.), and annotations cover the safety profile. Sufficient for a single-arg read tool, though it omits any note on result size or nesting.

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% for the single database_path parameter, so the schema does the work; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing database_path in the returns list. 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 read verb ('Read-only walk') against a named resource (UPoseSearchDatabase) and enumerates the sub-objects it traverses (Schema, DatabaseAnimationAssets, Channels). An agent can distinguish this composite inspection from siblings like inspect_pose_search_schema or get_pose_search_runtime_state.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'read-only walk' framing over schema, animation assets and channels, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not wording and no routing to alternatives such as inspect_pose_search_schema for schema-only needs. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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