subtree_pose_read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that—only 'real Joint' descendants and no playhead movement—but it remains silent on error behavior, return format, and whether missing/non-joint roots fail or return empty.

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 dense but front-loaded sentence covering scope, target, and non-mutating behavior. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly compressed and could more clearly separate the discovery and read aspects.

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, the description gives partial return-content hints ('parent/local/global/key state') but does not describe the response shape or frame semantics. Combined with annotations and a small two-parameter schema, it is adequate but leaves gaps an agent must probe.

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. It clarifies that 'root' must be an exact root (likely not a partial name), but it says nothing about the 'frame' parameter, leaving half of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('real Joint descendants of an exact root') plus the state read ('parent/local/global/key state'). It clearly scopes the operation to a subtree, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling readers like pose_read or rig_pose_read.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by stating it reads state 'without changing the playhead,' which signals a non-mutating inspection use case. However, it never names alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over pose_read, rig_pose_read, or subtree_snapshot.

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