check_bone_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and return behavior, but it does neither. It does not state whether this is a read-only check, what output it produces, or whether it modifies the armature.

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?

The description is extremely brief but reads as a list of keywords rather than a coherent sentence. It is concise but lacks structural flow, making it less informative than a well-formed sentence.

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?

The description omits essential context such as what the check returns (e.g., errors, warnings, a report), how results are presented, and whether the check has side effects. Given the tool's purpose, this is a significant gap.

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 only parameter 'armature' has no description in the schema or the tool description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the agent receives no explanation of what the parameter expects (e.g., object name, ID, or path).

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 (armature) and the action (check hierarchy), and specifies key aspects like orphan bones and maximum depth. It is distinct from similar tools like check_rig or check_bone_naming, making its purpose reasonably clear, though it is a phrase rather than a full sentence.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or relationships to other checking tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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