rig_profile_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 clear. The description adds that this performs verification of scene, topology, and control IDs, but it does not say what happens on mismatch, whether verification is reported or enforced, or what the caller should expect.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and verification scope directly.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete at the intent level. It explains the read and verification purpose, though it could say more about the profile name parameter and mismatch behavior.

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?

The only parameter is 'name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain that this is a rig profile name, how it is matched, or whether it must already exist, so it adds little meaning beyond the parameter's name.

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 and resource: read a rig profile. It also adds scope by saying it verifies scene, topology, and control IDs, which distinguishes it from siblings like rig_profile_create and rig_profiles_list, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'verify that its scene, topology and control IDs still match' implies usage for integrity checking, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over rig_profiles_list, rig_semantics, or rig_pose_read. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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