validation.limb_length

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

The annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a small amount beyond that by stating 'Risk: read', 'maturity: L3', and that per-request checks still apply, but it does not explain what the validation does or what kind of result the agent should expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but brevity is the only virtue; the command identification is redundant with the title, and the safety/requirements sentence is boilerplate. This reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Even with an output schema and safety annotations, a nine-parameter validation tool with nested object inputs needs some narrative about what limb-length validation checks and how frame boundaries or bone selections are used. None is present, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this definition.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate by explaining core parameters like armature, bones, frameStart, frameEnd, and limit. It provides none of that context; the phrase 'Per-request argument checks' only says that arguments are checked, not what they mean or how to form them.

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 identifies the command as `validation.limb_length` and labels its risk and maturity; it never states what the tool does, such as checking limb proportions or bone lengths across a frame range. This is essentially a restatement of the name and title and gives an agent no basis to select it over sibling validation tools.

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 when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like blender_validation_foot_drift or blender_validation_floor_penetration is provided. The only usage-related sentence says per-request argument checks and session policy apply, which is generic overhead rather than actionable selection guidance.

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