constraints-report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety and behavior information. The term 'report' suggests a non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or error behaviors. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, a required field, and an enum, yet the description gives no guidance on how to use them (e.g., default values, owner/bone dependencies). It also lacks any description of the return format or what 'live RNA properties' entails. With no output schema and sparse parameter explanation, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description provides no parameter-specific information, and schema coverage is 0%. The schema itself has descriptive titles (e.g., 'Pose bone name when owner is BONE'), but the description does not clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., that 'bone' is only relevant when owner is BONE) or provide usage examples. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report live RNA properties for object or pose-bone constraints' – a specific verb (report), resource (RNA properties), and scope (constraints). It distinguishes from siblings like constraints-list (listing) and constraints-set (modifying), though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for reporting properties on constraints, implying a read-only inspection use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus constraints-list or constraints-set, nor when not to use it. The intended usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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