rig.rigify_status

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

The description adds 'Risk: read' and 'maturity: L3', but 'read' is already captured by readOnlyHint=true. The maturity level is a minor addition, but no actual behavioral detail (what status is returned, how it works) is disclosed.

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 short, but it is not concise in the sense of packing useful information. It is sparse and fails to use the space to convey any meaningful content, so it does not earn its place.

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 tool with an output schema and no operational parameters, the description still must state the tool's purpose. It does not, leaving the agent completely unable to determine what rigify_status does or when to invoke it.

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 four parameters are internal harness fields already described in the schema with 75% coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 restates the tool name ('PartMe Blender Harness command rig.rigify_status') without explaining what the tool does. It provides no verb, resource, or functional detail beyond the name itself, making it a tautology.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions generic requirements ('Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply'), which are constraints, not usage context.

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