Spine project info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing a behavioral trait annotations cannot express: a ~3 s CLI startup cost per call and the resulting batching advice, plus the 'fast'/summary framing relative to heavier tools. It does not cover failure behavior on bad paths.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the cost/batching note. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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, the description effectively stands in for it by listing the returned fields, and it flags the latency cost. For a single-parameter read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; only error handling for invalid or missing paths is left unstated.

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 reported at 0% for the parameter, although the items field does enumerate accepted formats (.spine, .json, .skel/.bytes). The description compensates partly by explaining that multiple paths per call are supported and why (shared CLI startup), which is genuine meaning beyond the schema's minItems array.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Fast CLI summary'), then enumerates the returned contents: editor version, FPS, skeletons, bone/slot/constraint/animation lists. That is specific enough to distinguish it from heavier siblings like spine_inspect or spine_validate, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer that this is the lightweight orientation call. It does add one useful operational guideline: pass several paths in a single call to amortize the ~3 s CLI start.

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