list_bones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether the armature must be posed/selected first, what happens if the name is invalid, or the ordering of results.

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?

It is short with no padding, but it is a sentence fragment with no verb, so the key action is not front-loaded. Efficiency comes at the cost of grammatical completeness.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth. Naming the returned fields (parent, world head/tail, length) is a genuine plus, but identifier format, ordering, and read-only behavior are all missing for a tool whose sole input is undocumented.

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% and the single parameter 'armature' is undocumented in the schema. The description implies the parameter identifies an armature but never says whether it is an object name, a UUID, or an index, so it only partially compensates 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 fragment 'Bones of an armature with parent, world head and tail, length' identifies the resource (bones) and the scope (of an armature), and the name supplies the list verb. However it reads as a description of returned fields rather than a statement of what the tool does, leaving the action implicit.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus siblings like create_armature, bind, transfer_weights, or check_weights. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a read/inspection step before posing or binding.

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