list_bones

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals the safe read-only behavior. The description simply states 'list' without adding any further behavioral context such as return format, error conditions, or dependence on an existing armature. It is consistent with annotations but adds little beyond them.

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 description is a single, concise phrase of four words, entirely front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., the armature must exist) or what the returned list will contain, so it leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 does not elaborate on the 'armature_name' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description 'Daftar tulang armature' adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema field title 'Armature Name' already provides. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Daftar tulang armature' translates to 'List armature bones', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_bone, remove_bone, and rename_bone by indicating its read-only listing purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage cue is the tool's name and the phrase 'list', which implies its purpose but offers no explicit contextual direction.

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