semantic_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 one piece of behavioral context: results are gated on 'full native profile validation', implying possible failure when a profile is unvalidated. It does not say what happens on validation failure or whether the read is scoped to a character, frame, or the current scene state.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue in itself.

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 no output schema, four undocumented parameters, and a crowded sibling namespace, the description should explain return shape and parameter meaning. It does not, so an agent must guess at frame/character semantics and at what a 'semantic Point group' read actually returns.

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 full burden for four parameters. It loosely maps to roles ('semantic Point groups') and include_joint_state ('optional Joint states'), but leaves 'frame' and 'character' entirely unexplained, including whether frame is a timeline frame index or a coordinate frame.

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 names a specific verb and resource: reading selected semantic Point groups plus optional Joint states. That is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as pose_read, rig_pose_read, semantic_pose_read_sequence, or hand_pose_read, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which read variant applies.

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 description never says when to use this tool instead of the many other pose-read siblings, nor what preconditions select it. The phrase 'after full native profile validation' hints at a prerequisite but does not state whether the caller must validate first or whether the tool validates internally.

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