get_bone_influence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the query nature implicitly but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, that it has no side effects, or how it behaves for invalid vertex indices or objects without vertex groups. It also does not describe the output structure despite having an output schema; the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential information (what the tool returns) and avoids redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple query tool, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details captured in other dimensions.

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 an output schema, so return format is covered, but the description still lacks critical context: it does not explain the parameters, any prerequisites, or error behavior. With zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions, a two-parameter query tool needs more than a single clause to be complete. The description is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about how to construct valid calls.

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 explain the parameters. The description mentions '某顶点' (a vertex) but does not clarify that 'object' refers to a mesh object name or that 'vertex_index' is an integer index into that object's geometry. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional context, leaving the agent to guess the exact requirements (e.g., object naming conventions, index base).

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: it reports which vertex groups/bones influence a given vertex and their weights. The verb '受...影响及权重' (which influence and weights) is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like set_vertex_group_weights or normalize_weights. It names the resource (a vertex) and the information returned, leaving no ambiguity about its core purpose.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., that the object must be a mesh or have an armature modifier), and no exclusions. It does not mention that this is a read-only query for inspecting weights before editing, nor does it contrast with tools like find_unweighted_vertices. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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