rigging_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Check the status' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, it does not discuss error behavior (e.g., invalid task ID), idempotency, or whether the tool is safe to call repeatedly. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence of 7 words, very concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose, it currently contains no wasted words.

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 get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It identifies the tool's purpose but lacks details about the return value (e.g., status states) and does not compensate for the missing 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'id', described as 'Task ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'status of a rigging task', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rigging_create or rigging_delete, but could be more precise by mentioning what status information is returned.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rigging_list or wait_for_task. The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without usage context.

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