rig-list_bones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does state the key behavioral trait: the operation is read-only. It also discloses what data will be returned (bones with head/tail positions). It does not cover failure behavior or coordinate-space details, but for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, output details, and safety profile. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output content. There is no output schema to supplement return-value details, but the gap is minor given the low complexity and clear scope.

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 input schema has one required parameter, 'armature', with only a title ('Armature object to inspect') and no description coverage. The tool description does not clarify how the armature should be identified—whether by name, path, reference, or active object—leaving the required input meaning ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), clearly identifies the resource ('an armature's bones'), and states the output content ('head/tail positions'). It also flags the operation as read-only, which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like rig-add_bone and rig-set_bone_transform.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rig-report or rig-pose_report. The read-only tag implies inspection, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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