pose_sheet

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive read, and the description adds a genuinely useful state note the annotations cannot express: 'The rest pose is restored afterwards,' which tells the agent the temporary deformation is cleaned up. It does not disclose cost, render time, or whether poses are applied cumulatively.

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 what the tool produces, followed by usage and the state-restoration caveat. Three compact sentences, no filler, though the inline JSON example makes the first sentence heavy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the output (a single left-to-right sheet) and the ordering contract, and the state side effect is called out. What is missing is how the 'meshes' filter and 'armature' scope affect the result, which an agent may need before invoking.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the hardest parameter by showing the exact poses structure ({"rest": {}, "walk": {"thigh_L": [30,0,0]}}), which the schema only types as a free-form object. The other four parameters (armature, meshes, size, view) carry no descriptive meaning, keeping this short of a 5.

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 concrete artifact (one composite image), the resource (mesh in several poses), and the layout rule ('side by side, left to right in the order given'), with a literal example payload. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from render_sheet or pose without opening the schema.

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?

It states when to reach for it ('see joints bend, find tearing and collapsing') and names a companion check (check_weights) for comparison. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the intended inspection context is unambiguous.

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