constraints-list

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-like action ('List') but does not mention return format, safety characteristics, or any side effects. This is insufficient given the absence of structured metadata.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of multiple sibling constraint tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how owner works, or how it relates to other constraint tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to reason about.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the three parameters (object, bone, owner). While the schema titles are somewhat descriptive, the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to rely solely on potentially cryptic field names.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('object or pose-bone constraints'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like constraints-report or rig-constraints, but the verb 'List' implies a simple enumeration, which distinguishes it from add/remove/set operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as constraints-report or rig-constraints. The description gives no context for choosing this over other constraint-related tools, leaving the agent without directional advice.

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