check_rig

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists checks but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the armature, what it returns (e.g., a report, a list, a boolean), or any prerequisites (e.g., selection state). A 'check' tool is typically non-destructive, but this is not explicit, and the absence of any behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the purpose ('骨架综合体检' = comprehensive skeleton check) and then lists the specific checks. It is efficient and avoids fluff, but the structure is a run-on list that could benefit from clearer grouping or formatting. Still, it earns points for being compact and information-dense.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter with zero schema description coverage. The description fails to explain the output format, any side effects, prerequisites, or how to interpret results. For a diagnostic tool that checks multiple rig issues, an agent needs to know what the return value looks like and whether any action is required. The description is fundamentally incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema has a single required parameter 'armature' (string), but the description never mentions it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'armature' refers to (e.g., object name, path, or selection), but it does not. The agent receives no guidance on how to supply the parameter or what valid values are.

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: a comprehensive rig health check, listing specific issues it detects (zero-length bones, multiple roots, etc.). It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('check_rig') and enumerates concrete checks, which gives the agent a precise sense of what it does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling check tools like check_bone_hierarchy or find_unweighted_vertices, but the list itself implies a broader scope.

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 the many sibling diagnostic tools (check_bone_hierarchy, check_bone_naming, find_unweighted_vertices, list_constraint_issues, etc.). It doesn't state whether this is a first-pass diagnostic, whether it should be used before specific checks, or when to prefer individual tools. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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