production.rig_analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance — it distinguishes constraints that actually exist from chains that are merely inferred, and reports confidence — but says nothing about scope, cost, or failure behavior on a rig without an IK setup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and object arrive immediately. Brevity is a virtue here, though it is arguably too terse rather than wasteful.

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 read-only analysis tool with an output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description omits what is actually analyzed, how the armature is addressed, and whether results are paginated. The output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the preconditions and parameter meaning are still 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%: armature (a bare string), limit and offset are all undocumented. The description says nothing about any of them — not how the armature is identified, nor that limit/offset paginate results — so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description gives a verb-plus-resource pair ("Detect actual IK constraints and infer FK/control chains"), which is more specific than the name alone. However, the boundary with nearby siblings such as rig_analyze_controls, rig_analyze_limbs and rig_inspect_armature is not drawn at all, so an agent cannot tell from this text which analysis to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisite state it assumes (e.g. an armature already selected/in scene), or which sibling to use instead. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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