vrma_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that output is structured JSON and that no rendering occurs, but it doesn't mention file access requirements, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only status. The 'inspect' verb implies non-destructive behavior, but richer context would improve the score.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, enumerates the inspected attributes, and concludes with output format and a key non-behavior. Every phrase contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple inspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and what it doesn't do. It doesn't specify error handling or exact JSON structure, but the listed fields give a strong hint. Given the low complexity, this is nearly 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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter ('path') with a description 'Local path to a .vrma file'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a local VRMA (VRM animation) file'). It lists the exact information returned (spec version, targeted bones, expression tracks, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrm_inspect (VRM files) and vrma_preview (rendering).

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 clearly indicates the tool is for inspecting VRMA files and mentions 'no rendering,' which helps an agent decide when to use it for analysis rather than preview. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the rendering exclusion.

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