hand_pose_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results come back as local rotation channels rather than world-space transforms, and the values are "validated" chains, implying integrity checking. It omits what an invalid or missing chain yields, which matters for a read tool with no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence with the read scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the density of unexplained jargon slightly undercuts readability.

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 three-parameter pose reader with no output schema and zero schema-description coverage, the definition should clarify parameter meaning and roughly what the returned channels look like. It explains neither, and gives no hint whether defaults return both hands or every frame.

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% across three parameters (side, frame, character), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and adds nothing — frame and side are never mentioned. It hints at a finger/palm split but not how to restrict a read to a side or a character, leaving all three parameters semantically bare.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read ... finger chains") and scopes it to fingers by excluding palms, so the basic purpose is recoverable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many lookalike siblings (pose_read, semantical_pose_read, rig_pose_read, hand_pose_apply_sequence), and terms like "Cascy" and "authored local rotation channels" are unexplained domain jargon an agent may not decode.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, even though this tool sits in a dense cluster of near-identical pose-read tools. The negative scoping ("palm targets are separate") is a useful exclusion but never says which tool handles palms, leaving the agent to guess.

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