rig.constraints

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states that the tool lists constraints, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention side effects or required permissions, but the behavior is straightforward and sufficiently transparent for a list operation.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource. Every word contributes to the purpose; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing the return format (e.g., list of constraint names, objects, or properties). The description also does not mention the required mode (e.g., pose mode) or whether the tool works with selected armatures. These gaps reduce completeness given the tool's moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that omitting the bone parameter lists constraints for the whole armature, while specifying a bone lists constraints for that bone. This adds value beyond the schema which only labels the bone parameter as 'Optional pose bone name to inspect'.

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 action (List), the resource (pose bone constraints), and the scope (on one bone or the whole armature). It distinguishes from siblings like rig.constraint_add (adds) and constraints.list (which may be more general).

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 when to use it (list constraints on a specific bone or entire armature) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like constraints.list. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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