character_motion_inspect

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

The annotations already establish readOnly=true and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: it reads at every stored frame (not just the current one) and explicitly guarantees no playhead change, which matters given the many timeline/tracks tools in the sibling set. It stops short of explaining units, error semantics, or data volume, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Two compact sentences with the data scope front-loaded and the non-mutation guarantee appended as a constraint. No filler sentences, though the phrasing is dense enough that it reads as a data dump rather than a prioritised summary.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema and read-only annotations, the tool is simple, and the description usefully enumerates what is returned (COM, targets, connection errors, curve metadata), partly compensating for the missing output schema. However, it says nothing about the identifier, units, or how to interpret 'connection errors', leaving a real gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 single parameter character_id is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the bare schema. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which softens the gap, but the description does not say what kind of character identifier is expected or where it comes from.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Read') plus a specific set of resources: native mass-weighted COM, COM targets, rigid-body connection errors at every stored frame, and character curve metadata. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, name or contrast with nearby siblings like motion_measure, character_pose, or pose_read, so the agent must infer which read tool to pick.

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 playhead changes' implies a non-intrusive inspection use case and 'at every stored frame' signals a bulk/all-frames scope rather than a single-frame read. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., motion_measure or character_pose), so selection between the many read tools remains inferred.

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