pose_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns 'actual' (evaluated) values and works with arbitrary Transform rigs, which is genuine context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about whether frame affects the read or how object lookup failures behave.

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 dense sentence with the verb and output channels front-loaded; no filler. The semicolon clause is slightly compressed but still readable, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 low-complexity 3-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys what is returned, the addressing mode, and rig compatibility. The main residual gap is that frame/space behavior is left entirely to inference.

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%, so the description carries the burden; it usefully explains that 'objects' accepts exact IDs or unique names rather than generic strings, which is real added meaning. However, the 'frame' and 'space' (local/global enum) parameters get no explanation at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads position and quaternion channels, and the 'quaternion' qualifier implicitly separates it from the euler variant (pose_read_euler). It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the boundary from the channel type.

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?

'for exact object IDs or unique names' hints at the addressing model, implying this is for known targets rather than pattern-based or hierarchy-wide reads (subtree_pose_read, pose_read_sequence). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to pose_read_euler or semantic_pose_read when the agent needs euler values or semantic rig channels.

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