list_bones

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 only the shape of the return values (parent, world head/tail, length) and says nothing about errors, armature lookup behavior, or whether bones are filtered. Minimal added context beyond annotations.

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 short sentence with no padding, which is efficient. But it is a sentence fragment that front-loads the return fields rather than the action, so it is terse rather than well-structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, the required armature parameter remains unexplained, which is a real gap for invocation correctness.

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 the single 'armature' parameter, yet it never explains how the armature is identified (name, object reference, path). The phrase 'of an armature' only weakly implies the parameter selects the armature, which is insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 the resource (bones of an armature) and enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent infer this is a listing/read tool. However, it never states the action verb explicitly and doesn't distinguish itself from armature-related siblings like create_armature or bind. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_armature, bind, or pose. There is no mention of prerequisites or context of use; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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