control_rig_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' signals a read-only operation and the description clarifies what elements are included and what include_names does. It does not mention error behavior, invalid paths, or side-effect-free status explicitly.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and the Args/KB/example block is compact and useful. The Args section partly duplicates the schema but earns its place by adding semantic detail, and there is no fluff.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only describe tool with an output schema, the description includes a working example, a KB anchor, and enough invocation detail. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists; only explicit handling of invalid rig paths is missing.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It does so clearly: rig_path is 'Full Control Rig asset path' and include_names is 'Include element name lists in the result.' This adds value beyond the bare schema, though the default true behavior is left to the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('Control Rig hierarchy, preview mesh, controls, bones, and nulls'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation/baking tools. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you need to inspect a Control Rig hierarchy, and the example plus KB pointer support that. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of a more appropriate sibling tool.

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