character_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the enumeration of returned data kinds (hierarchy, point membership, rig links, tracks), which is genuinely useful because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about size limits, depth, or whether an omitted character argument defaults to the active character.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing detail penalized in other dimensions.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should say what shape the skeleton data takes and what the optional flag changes. It instead leaves both parameters and the default targeting behavior completely undocumented.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: it never explains what 'character' expects (name, path, id, or active-by-default) or what 'include_track_sections' toggles and when to set it. With an empty required list, an agent also cannot tell how to call it with no arguments.

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 verb 'Read' plus the resource list ('character hierarchy, Point membership, RigAdditionalInfo links and tracks') gives a rough idea of what is returned, but terms like 'Point membership' and 'RigAdditionalInfo links' are domain jargon that an agent cannot resolve from the text alone. Nothing distinguishes it from near siblings such as rig_semantics, object_hierarchy, or character_pose, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does a scene or active character need to be selected?), and no pointer to alternatives among the many character/rig read tools. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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