get_bone_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the operation is safe, and the description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful context. No additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, required armature state, or naming conventions are disclosed, but for a simple getter the annotation plus output schema cover the main safety concern.

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 a single crisp sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and the contents of the returned info without filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This is a low-complexity getter with readOnlyHint, an output schema, and only two required parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are missing parameter semantics and usage routing, but these are modest given the tool's simplicity and the presence of structured annotations and output 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?

The input schema has two required string parameters, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what 'object' and 'bone' refer to or how they are formatted. The parameter names are mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 operation ('Get') and resource ('bone') and enumerates the returned attributes: head, tail, roll, parent, children, constraints. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from related siblings like get_armature_info or list_bone_constraints, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 is a fragment and gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_armature_info, list_bone_constraints, or set_bone_property. A read-only intent is implied, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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