production.inspect_armature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'without modifying the rig' is consistent with them, adding mild confirmation. Beyond that it offers little extra context (no depth, cost, or output behavior), so with annotations doing the heavy lifting a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could have been expanded slightly to cover parameters, but as written every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the description is adequate but leaves the parameter surface and sibling differentiation unaddressed. A brief note on armature selection and pagination would complete it.

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% and the description only loosely implies that an armature target exists. The required 'armature' parameter and especially the 'limit'/'offset' pagination parameters get no explanation in the description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

A specific verb (inspect) pairs with concrete resources (bones, hierarchy, constraints, drivers), making the tool's scope clear. It does not, however, name a sibling such as rig_analyze or rig_analyze_controls to distinguish when this inspection differs from those analyses.

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?

'Without modifying the rig' implies this is the safe read-only inspection option, giving an implicit usage signal. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no prerequisites named.

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