List MoGraph Clones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses a non-obvious side effect: 'The bridge forces a scene pass so the MoData array is populated before sampling.' It also states the exact failure modes and the supported/unsupported return flag. This is more than most tool descriptions provide, though it doesn't mention performance cost or mutation risk (there is no mutation).

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral note, and return format/failure modes. The key verb and resource appear in the first sentence, and the return shape is compactly specified inline. No redundancy with the schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, return shape, and failure conditions. With no output schema, the inline return shape `{count, returned, clones: [{index, pos, matrix?}]}` is essential and present. It doesn't explain what 'pos' contains or the matrix format, but those are minor given the tool's narrow scope and the parameter defaults already in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters (handle, max_count, include_matrix). The description adds minimal parameter-level detail, but it does clarify that max_count defaults to 2048 and that include_matrix controls the optional matrix field, which is mildly helpful. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage and no required extra semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('per-clone transforms from a MoGraph generator'), explicitly names supported generators (Cloner / Matrix / Tracer), and is distinguishable from sibling tools like sample_transform or get_mesh. The return format is also stated, which further clarifies what the tool does.

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 states the primary use case (reading per-clone transforms) and gives a conditional fallback ('supported:false when the build lacks c4d.modules.mograph or when the handle isn't a MoGraph generator'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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