get_hand_pose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned data is local rotations plus 'verified hierarchy bindings' and that body hand Points do not drive finger shape. It still says nothing about scope needing a specific character state or frame validity.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Dense with domain jargon but no wasted words.

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?

As a read-only getter with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the returned content (finger rotations, hierarchy bindings). However, with two required parameters and zero schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete about how to supply inputs.

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 never mentions character_id or frame. The frame's 0-120 bound and the UUID pattern for character_id are left entirely to the raw schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus a precise resource (Cascy finger local rotations and verified hierarchy bindings), which separates it from generic pose getters like get_pose and get_character_pose. The scope is clearly finger-focused, though 'Cascy' is jargon an agent must already know.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the many sibling pose readers (get_pose, get_character_pose, get_semantic_pose) or the setter set_hand_pose_sequence. The caveat about body hand Points is a data note, not routing guidance.

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