rig-vertex_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It does not disclose any behavior such as read-only nature, side effects, or what exactly is returned (e.g., group names only, weights too, formatting). This leaves room for ambiguity.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and well-structured, immediately conveying the tool's function.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description adequately conveys the main action. However, it omits potential details such as whether it lists all groups including empty ones, or if it requires a valid mesh name. Still, it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 schema defines a single 'mesh' parameter with a title 'Mesh object to inspect'. The description adds no extra clarification about the parameter's format, required identifiers, or how it affects the output. Schema coverage is minimal, and the description fails to compensate.

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: to list mesh vertex groups and their assigned weights. This is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like rig-list_bones or rig-vertex_group_create.

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 inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on situations where listing vertex groups would be preferred over other rig or report tools.

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