pose_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key side effect: 'The rest pose is restored afterwards', which reassures the agent that the scene state is not left mutated. It also fixes the ordering semantics of the output. It does not describe the return format (file path vs inline image) or any cost/limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the output and format, followed by purpose and side effect; no filler sentences. The embedded JSON example is slightly dense inline but is genuinely load-bearing for the poses parameter.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the poses format, and state restoration, but omits the meaning of view/size/meshes and any description of what the returned image actually is. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate; it does add critical meaning for the most complex parameter ('poses') via a concrete example, clarifying the otherwise opaque additionalProperties object. However, size, view, meshes, and armature receive no explanation at all, leaving half the interface undocumented.

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?

States a specific output ('one image with the mesh in several poses side by side, left to right in the order given') which cleanly distinguishes it from the single-pose 'pose' sibling and from view-oriented render tools. The inline poses example makes the resource and its semantics unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete usage intent ('see joints bend, find tearing and collapsing') and names an alternative ('compare with check_weights'). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a contrast with the sibling 'pose' tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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