Inspect skeleton

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing that section views return raw JSON while animation returns every timeline with exact keys. It says nothing about file-loading failures, output size for large skeletons, or whether filters apply across views.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded, with zero filler sentences. The semicolon-DSL style ('bones|slots|skins|constraints: raw section JSON') is dense but parseable, though the opening fragment 'Skeleton structure.' is clipped rather than a full statement.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing what each view returns instead of a return schema. Gaps remain on error behavior for unsupported files and on how large raw section/animation output can get, which matters for an agent deciding between summary and raw views.

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?

The schema enum lists six view values with no per-value descriptions, and the description supplies exactly that semantics by explaining what each view yields and which is the default. With 71% schema coverage the remaining parameters (kind, owner, filter, skeleton) are largely explained in the schema itself, so this is adequate-to-good.

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 (skeleton structure) and enumerates the exact information each view returns (counts, bone tree, constraints, timelines), so an agent can tell what it gets. It does not, however, differentiate from overlapping siblings such as spine_project_info or spine_skins.

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 that summary is the default and maps each non-default view to its output, which implicitly guides view selection. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the neighboring tools that overlap (project_info, skins, audit).

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