production.rig_compatibility_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral nuance beyond that: results are per-feature conditions, so an agent should not read a positive result as global rig compatibility. It stops short of saying what is inspected or how partial results should be interpreted.

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 a single short clause with no filler, so it is not bloated. But it is not front-loaded with a purpose statement; the most important information (what the tool does) is absent, and what is present is a qualifier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the core question unanswered: compatibility of what with what, and under what input expectations. With 0% parameter coverage and several near-identical compatibility-report siblings, this definition does not give an agent enough to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions 'object_name' (the sole required parameter) or the opaque 'options' object, so an agent must guess what object is expected (a rig, an armature, a mesh?) and what options are meaningful. This is a clear failure 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 sentence describes the nature of the report's contents (feature-specific support conditions) but never states what the tool actually does or what it reports compatibility between. Against four sibling '*_compatibility_report' tools (facial, physics, material, animation_generation), there is nothing to distinguish this one beyond the 'rig' in the name. It reads as a caveat restating the title rather than a purpose statement.

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 explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'never blanket compatibility' faintly implies when-not (don't call it expecting a single yes/no verdict), but the agent gets no signal about what input state or question should route it here rather than to rig_analyze or animation_generation_compatibility.

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