maya_unreal_check_skeleton

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses that the tool is non-destructive, explains why auto-fixing is dangerous (skin weight breakage), and directs the agent to avoid modifications until instructed. This goes well beyond basic annotations and gives clear behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections: main function, non-modification behavior, rationale, inspection list, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. The use of bold and bullet-like list improves scannability.

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, parameters, behavioral constraints, and inspection items comprehensively. The main gap is the lack of detail on the output/report format; it mentions 'reported issues' but doesn't specify the exact structure or response type. This is minor given no output schema exists, but slightly reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: root (with behavior when empty), primary_axis (with convention guidance), and tolerance_deg (with threshold semantics). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: auditing joint orientation and Unreal skeleton compatibility. The verb 'audits' is specific and the resource is detailed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like maya_unreal_check_materials or maya_unreal_prepare.

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 provides strong behavioral guidance: it does not change the scene, does not auto-fix, and instructs to pass issues to the user without taking action. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when to choose this over siblings, so it falls short of full explicit 'when-to-use' guidance.

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