Analyze limb chains in a rig to report control mode and explicit switch relationships. Use it to inspect limb structure and identify how controls toggle between states.
Limb chains, present control mode and explicit switch relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as what is inspected, whether a rig or pose must be selected first, or how switches are resolved, so it contributes very little beyond structured annotations.
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?
It is brief, but it is an under-specified noun phrase rather than a useful concise statement. There is no front-loaded verb or actionable framing, so brevity is not earning 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?
The tool has two parameters, one with completely opaque options, and no schema descriptions; the description does not fill any of that gap. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the core analysis scope and parameter meaning remain absent.
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%, yet the description never mentions object_name or the opaque options object. Neither parameter gains any meaning from the text, 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?
The fragment names the resource (limb chains) and the reported facets (present control mode, explicit switch relationships), so the general subject is inferable. But there is no verb and no complete statement of what the tool does, leaving it short of a clear verb+resource definition that would distinguish it from rig_analyze or rig_analyze_controls.
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, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing despite a dense rig-analysis family. An agent must guess whether to call this, rig_analyze, rig_analyze_controls, or rig_classify.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.