get_semantic_pose

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: it states that full rig validation always runs, that defaults return all 11 roles plus joint states, and that partial reads skip animation/whole-body validation. No contradiction with 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what is read and the units, then defaults and toggles. No filler, though the last sentence could be folded into the defaults discussion.

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?

There is no output schema, and while the description indicates what is returned conceptually (named Point targets in world units, joint states), it doesn't describe response shape, ordering, or error modes. Given a 4-param read tool with 0% schema coverage, more return/param detail would help.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the semantics of roles (1-11 unique semantic roles) and include_joint_state (false omits joint states), but frame and character_id get no coverage, and frame bounds (0-120) and the UUID pattern are only in the schema. Partial compensation.

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 and resource ('Read named Point targets in world scene units') and clarifies units and scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_pose/get_character_pose by the 'named Point targets' and 'semantic roles' framing, though it never explicitly names an alternative to route between them.

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?

Gives implied context (defaults to all 11 roles, optional role selection, joint-state toggle), but does not articulate when to prefer this over get_pose, get_character_pose, or get_rig_semantics. The final sentence hints at a caveat (partial reads don't validate animation) without stating an explicit when-to-use rule.

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