rig_semantics

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. Beyond that the description only says it validates and exposes; it does not say what happens on a failed validation (error? partial result?), whether anything is cached or written, or why the hierarchy must be "complete".

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 the validation step before the exposure step, and no filler. It is efficient, but the density of unexplained terms makes it terse rather than clarifying.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what "semantic role slots" look like when returned, and it does not. With one undocumented optional parameter and undefined output shape, an agent would have to guess both the input and the response.

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% for the single "character" parameter, so the schema gives no meaning at all and the description never mentions the parameter. It does not say whether "character" is a name, path, or id, nor what the default behaviour is when it is omitted (it is not required).

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?

There are concrete verbs ("Validate", "expose") and named resources ("Cascy hierarchy", "Point membership", "native bindings", "semantic role slots"), but the nouns are undefined domain jargon, and the description never distinguishes this from rig_profile_read, character_edit_readiness, or character_motion_inspect. An agent can tell it is a read/validation step but not precisely what it produces.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many rig_* and character_* siblings. The ordering word "then" hints that validation must precede slot exposure but gives no condition for choosing this over neighbouring inspection tools.

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