list_bones

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 that the operation returns a list (a read operation) and mentions properties, but does not describe potential side effects (none expected), error conditions (e.g., nonexistent armature), or the structure/format of the returned list. It offers basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no filler or redundant detail. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists (so return details are not required), the description omits critical context such as error handling for missing armatures, the nature of 'properties' returned, and any preconditions (e.g., armature must exist). The lack of annotation coverage further amplifies these gaps. For a basic listing tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the parameter 'armature_name'. The tool description only reuses the term 'armature' without elaborating on its format, requirements, or relationship to the returned data. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema metadata, the parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 specifies a clear action ('Return a list') and resource ('all bones in an armature') with mention of properties. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_bone, set_bone_property, and delete_bone by focusing on retrieval, and from other list_ tools by targeting bones specifically. This is a precise and unambiguous 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?

The description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives. There's no mention of contexts like 'use before modifying bones' or references to other bone-related tools. The intended use is inferable from the name and description, but explicit routing is absent.

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