Rig QA

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description and the enumeration of detection categories tells the agent exactly what classes of problems surface — meaningfully more than the annotation. It does not say whether results are errors vs warnings, whether it aborts on failure, or how findings are reported, which is a real gap for a QA tool.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with "Rig hygiene:", but the remainder is one long comma-run of mixed-granularity items ("names (spaces, clashes, default names, mixed left/right styles)" next to vague phrases like "art a mesh cuts off"), which is hard to parse at a glance and would benefit from grouping.

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 should say what a result looks like and how issues are grouped or severity-ranked; it does not. Scope is well covered, but one of three parameters and the entire result contract are left to inference.

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 only 33%; only `input` is documented in the schema. The description's "too many influences" checks implicitly explains the purpose of maxInfluences, but the `skeleton` parameter is unexplained in both places and no default or threshold for maxInfluences is given.

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?

"Rig hygiene" plus an explicit enumeration of defect categories (naming clashes, unused bones, weights not summing to 1, joints that open, missing images) makes the operation concrete and distinct from a generic validator. It never states the verb directly (check/report?) but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 names spine_validate as a complement, which implies a division of labour, but never says when to pick this tool over spine_validate, spine_doctor, or spine_audit, nor whether this is a pre-export gate. Usage is inferable from the check list only.

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