check_bone_naming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for missing mirrors and non-standard naming but does not disclose what the tool does with the results (e.g., returns a list of issues, modifies anything), whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a validation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is well-structured with the action and scope clearly stated, but it sacrifices necessary context for brevity. It earns credit for being compact, though it could be slightly longer to include key usage details.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the convention parameter, what constitutes 'non-standard naming', what the tool returns, or any prerequisites (e.g., armature must be selected). The agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly based on this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not. It never mentions 'armature' or 'convention' or how they influence the check. The convention parameter (default BLENDER) is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without any guidance on valid values or impact.

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 function: checking .L/.R symmetric naming in bones, specifically looking for missing mirrors and non-standard naming. It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (bone naming), and it is distinct from sibling tools like check_rig or check_bone_hierarchy, which focus on other aspects of rigs.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_bone_hierarchy or check_rig. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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