design_analyze_pose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose the return payload — joint angles, proportions, center of gravity, symmetry score — which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor what happens on a non-skeleton layer or an invalid layerId.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the return payload after the dash. No filler, nothing repeated, and it fits in one line.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity analysis tool with no output schema, naming the four computed metrics is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is precondition/coverage behavior — what it returns or errors on for a non-skeleton layer — but that is minor at this complexity.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Skeleton layer ID to analyze.' The description adds the constraint that the layer must be a skeleton, but no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb 'Analyze' plus specific resource 'pose skeleton', and it enumerates the computed outputs (joint angles, proportions, center of gravity, symmetry score). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutators like design_add_pose_skeleton or design_set_pose_keypoints, though it never names a sibling to route away from.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this should be run on an existing skeleton layer. There is no statement of preconditions (e.g. that a skeleton must first be created via design_add_pose_skeleton), no when-not guidance, and no alternatives mentioned.

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