rig.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds 'Risk: read' (redundant) and 'maturity: L3' but no actual behavioral details like return format or side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any substantive content, just metadata, and does not front-load useful information.

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 an inspection tool with 6 parameters and no required fields, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't clarify what to inspect, which parameter to use, or what the output contains, despite having an output schema.

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 coverage is 50% with descriptions only for internal parameters (_requestId, _authorization, _transactionId), while core parameters like name and objectId lack descriptions. The tool description provides no additional parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 only restates the command name ('rig.inspect') and does not state what the tool does. It fails to distinguish from sibling rig tools like blender_rig_bind or blender_rig_create_armature, offering no clear verb or resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions session policy, which is generic and not about usage context or selection criteria.

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