project_bone_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the core operation without disclosing error handling, return format, or edge cases (e.g., points exceeding maxItems, invalid matrix).

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 (18 words) that packs essential information. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, batch operation), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format, constraints (e.g., maxItems), or behavior for invalid inputs. An output schema or richer description would improve completeness.

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 low (17%). The description only mentions the viewProjectionMatrix parameter ('combined projection*view matrix'), but does not explain other parameters like width, height, yDirection, clipDepthRange, or the structure of points. This leaves significant gaps.

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: it batch-projects named bone or joint world positions to 2D pixels using a combined projection*view matrix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like world_to_screen (single point) and transform_point_3d (general transformation).

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or explicit conditions for use, such as handling of points behind the camera or out-of-view situations.

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