daz_reach_toward

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: uses pseudo-IK approximation, automatically adjusts elbow bend based on target distance, and notes limitations. No annotations provided, so description fully bears the responsibility and does so comprehensively, including return values and the note about precision.

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?

Well-structured with summary, Args, Returns, Example, and Note sections. Front-loaded with main action. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence is informative and no fluff.

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?

Despite lack of schema coverage, the description fully covers behavior, parameters with units, return values, and limitations. Includes examples and a note about when to use alternatives. Output schema is described in Returns section.

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 description must document all 5 parameters. It does: character_label, side, target_x/y/z with units (cm), and provides examples showing parameter usage and ranges. Adds meaning beyond just listing names.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Position character's arm to reach toward a world-space point.' It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like daz_look_at_point (for eyes/head) and daz_interactive_pose by specifying arm positioning and pseudo-IK approximation.

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?

Provides usage context through examples and a note: 'This uses simplified IK approximation. For precise hand positioning or complex reaching, load an artist-created pose preset instead.' This tells when not to use, though it could be more explicit about when to use vs. alternatives.

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