rig-report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Report' implicitly suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any safety guarantees, potential side effects, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the armature does not exist). The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavioral expectations beyond the basic action.

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 with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 description lacks critical context: there is no output schema, no mention of the return structure (e.g., whether it returns a list, formatted text, or data), and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an active armature). While it lists the content categories, it omits enough details to fully prepare an agent for invocation and interpretation of results.

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 0% description coverage, and the description gives no explanation of the 'armature' parameter. It only states it is an armature object to inspect, but does not clarify expected format (e.g., name, path, type) or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 specifies exactly what the tool reports: rest bones, pose bones, constraints, and child meshes. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like rig-list_bones (which likely only lists bones) and rig-pose_report (pose-specific). The verb 'report' and resource 'armature' (implied by parameter) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 a comprehensive rig report, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus more focused alternatives like rig-list_bones or rig-pose_report. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer relative utility.

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