discover_limb_chains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it might have, or how it interacts with the armature. The mention of 'candidates' hints at a non-destructive process, but this is not confirmed. The description is purely operational and lacks transparency about effects beyond the immediate action.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a crucial usage hint. It earns a high score for efficiency and structure, though not a perfect 5 because it does not elaborate on any edge cases or clarifications.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool as part of a larger rigging pipeline and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It does not explain how the discovered chains are returned or how the 'candidate' approach integrates with subsequent tools like create_limb_ik. The description is serviceable but leaves the agent to infer the exact role and output format, which is only partially covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention armature_name or minimum_chain_length at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no context about their meaning, defaults, or how they affect the discovery process. This is a significant gap given the low 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 states a specific action ('Discover') on a specific resource ('weighted deform-bone chains') with a clear filter ('that geometrically resemble front or rear limbs'). This is clear and distinct from siblings like probe_bone_deformation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. It slightly loses a point for not explicitly differentiating from the sibling that performs deformation probing, despite implying a complementary role.

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?

The phrase 'Treat roles as candidates until deformation probing confirms them' implies this tool is a preliminary step before probe_bone_deformation, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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