pose_read_sequence

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, non-redundant context: the read happens "without changing the current frame," i.e. the timeline's current frame state is untouched. It does not explain what happens when requested frames contain no stored pose data, or whether the 128 limit is per call.

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; the read scope and the key non-side-effect constraint are both in the first clause sequence. Nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is thin: it never says what a "native controller pose" contains, which objects are valid, or what happens for frames without stored data. The safety annotations help, but the parameter and return-shape burden is largely unmet.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It clarifies the 128-frame cap implicitly via "up to 128 stored frames" (already encoded as maxItems) and hints that frames must be "stored," but says nothing about the "objects" parameter (which objects are addressable) or the "space" enum (local vs global semantics).

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("native controller poses") with an explicit scope ("up to 128 stored frames"), which distinguishes it from a single-frame read like pose_read. It stops short of naming which sibling read tool to use for a different pose domain (semantic, rig, hand), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 batch/sequence nature of the tool is implied by "up to 128 stored frames," but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as pose_read, semantic_pose_read_sequence, rig_pose_read, and hand_pose_read in the list, the agent receives no routing signal here.

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