get_semantic_pose_sequence

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real context: it does not move the playhead, does not cache a rig between requests, uses native stored values, and validates the rig before selecting values. These are genuine behavioral traits not derivable from the 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the core batch-read constraint is front-loaded. The phrasing is compact but slightly overloaded mid-sentence ('Optional roles and include_joint_state select values after complete rig validation').

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape, and it only gestures at it ('native stored values'). It does cover non-side-effect behavior well, but an agent still lacks detail on what the response contains and how errors (invalid frames, non-existent frames) are surfaced.

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 carries the burden, and it only partially compensates – it clarifies that frames are read in requested order and that roles/include_joint_state 'select values', but explains nothing about the role enum meanings, include_joint_state's default/effect, or character_id. It adds some meaning but leaves notable gaps.

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) and resource (semantic pose for 1-8 frames in one call), plus the batch scope that makes it distinct from a single-frame read. It does not name the single-frame sibling get_semantic_pose, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 batching constraint ('1-8 unique existing frames in ONE MCP call') implies when to prefer this over repeated single-frame calls, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative among the many siblings (get_semantic_pose, get_pose, offset_semantic_pose_sequence).

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