rig-constraints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and the scope behavior is disclosed. However, it does not describe return format, handling of missing bone names, or whether only bones with constraints are included, leaving agents partially in the dark.

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?

One 10-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and every word adds scope or resource specificity. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

For a low-complexity list tool this is mostly adequate, covering the target resource and filtering scope. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return-value hints and edge-case behavior (missing bone, armature without pose bones), which a listing tool should anticipate.

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 coverage is 0% and parameters have only title text, so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by explaining that omitting 'bone' yields the whole armature's constraints, directly mapping to the optional parameter; however, it does not clarify the expected format for the required 'armature' value.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('pose bone constraints') with explicit scoping ('on one bone or the whole armature'), providing a specific verb+resource+scope. The 'pose bone' qualifier distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like constraints-list and from rig-report/rig-pose_report.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The verb 'List' implies a read-only inspection use-case, distinguishing it from mutating siblings like rig-constraint_add/remove, but the description never names alternatives or exclusions despite many overlapping report/list tools existing.

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