Spine editor status and import check

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description adds real context that writes go to a verified staging copy while the editor is open — a behavioral constraint not in the annotations. However, it never says what the check actually reports (boolean, list of pending items?) and the 'animations confirms each one' clause is too compressed to convey the verification behavior reliably.

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, but the telegraphic 'With project: ...' construction and run-on second sentence trade clarity for brevity. The lead question is front-loaded effectively; the rest reads as notes rather than a structured explanation.

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?

Four optional parameters, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage demand more than this. Neither the return value nor the role of 'skeleton' and 'staged' is explained, so an agent cannot confidently decide how to call it or interpret the result.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning, and it largely fails. 'project', 'animations' and implicitly 'staged' are gestured at in one ambiguous clause, while 'skeleton' is never mentioned anywhere, and the phrasing 'With project: what still waits in the staging copy' does not make clear which parameter controls which behavior.

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 frames the tool as a question ('Is a Spine editor window open (and likely on this project)?') and adds two vague modes ('With project: what still waits in the staging copy', 'animations confirms each one after Import Project and a save'). The gist — an editor/import status check — is inferable, but it never states cleanly what the tool returns or reports, and it is not sharply distinguished from siblings like spine_status, spine_doctor or spine_reimport_diff.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'animations confirms each one after Import Project and a save' suggests it is called post-import to check what remains staged. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many spine_* status/validation siblings.

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