rig_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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of grouping by roles; it does not say what a profile is, what happens when a role is missing, or how results are shaped, which matters because there is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being a model of density.

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 four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, one required parameter unexplained, and no output schema, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess. A mutation-free read tool still needs to explain profile and role semantics to be callable with confidence.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It vaguely gestures at "roles" but never explains profile (the required parameter), frame, or the local/global space enum.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("controller poses") plus the organizing concept (grouping by user-defined body or finger roles), so the operation is identifiable. It does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as pose_read, semantic_pose_read, hand_pose_read, or rig_pose_apply, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent read tools (pose_read, semantic_pose_read, hand_pose_read, subtree_pose_read) or when to use rig_pose_apply instead. The agent must infer selection 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.