constraints.report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'live RNA properties', hinting at read-only behavior, but does not disclose potential performance impact, required permissions, or whether it modifies state. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, concise sentence (<10 words) with no redundancy. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, which impacts completeness. Still, every word contributes to the purpose.

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 reports 'live RNA properties' for constraints, but the description does not explain what properties are reported, in what format, or how pagination works. With no output schema and a non-trivial domain, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full capability.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters. It does not explain the 'owner' enum, the 'name' filter, or the 'bone' string. The schema titles are insufficient. The description completely fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the action ('Report') and resource ('live RNA properties for object or pose-bone constraints'), differentiating it from siblings like 'constraints.list' which likely only lists constraint names. The verb-resource pair is specific and well-defined.

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 description implies usage for obtaining detailed constraint properties but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'constraints.list' or 'constraints.set'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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