run_hands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Blender/fakepose execution context and a 10-minute time bound, and lists what gets produced. However, it does not clarify mutation semantics: whether existing clips or the blend file are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or whether Blender must already be running.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and execution environment, then lists the concrete outcomes and return value. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the action, environment, time bound, outputs, and return summary, which is useful for a tool with no output schema. For a mutating Blender pipeline with no annotations, however, it omits prerequisites, overwrite behavior, error handling, and the exact nature of the returned summary. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description implies that the facts file drives the gun configuration and that clips may be selected by default, but it adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Runs Weapon Lab's Gun Kit hands step with fakepose') and enumerates concrete outputs: gun at aim, preset holds applied, clips keyed/written, eye clipping checked. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them, but its pipeline-execution purpose is distinguishable from the report/preset siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hold_report or clip_report, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The mention of 'at most 10 minutes' and the default clip behavior gives context, but the agent is left to infer when this step should be run.

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