rig.report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what format the report returns (text, structured), or any side effects. The description merely lists report contents.

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 concise sentence listing report targets without extraneous words. It is efficiently structured, though could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 combined report tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return format, read-only nature, or the relationship between the parameter and the report contents. Compared to sibling report tools, it is under-specified.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'armature' parameter beyond its title. It adds no additional meaning or validation context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 reports rest bones, pose bones, constraints, and child meshes, which indicates a combined inspection of an armature. It distinguishes from siblings like rig.list_bones or rig.pose_report by encompassing multiple aspects, but does not explicitly differentiate from other comprehensive reports.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rig.list_bones or rig.pose_report. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., armature exists) or when not to use it.

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