inspect_bone_axes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Inspect' which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention behaviors like error handling when bones are not found, whether selected bones refers to a selection in the scene or the bone_names parameter, or any dependencies on rest pose. It is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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, efficient sentence that lists multiple inspection facets without unnecessary fluff. It front-loads the primary action ('Inspect') and the key attributes in a compact manner, making it easy to parse.

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 present, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks information about required armature context, how to specify which bones to inspect, and whether any scene selection is needed. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description should provide more operational context.

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 for parameter meaning. It mentions 'selected bones' but does not explain the armature_name or bone_names parameters, their roles, types, or how they interact (e.g., bone_names defaults to null meaning all bones?). The description adds no value beyond the parameter names already present in the schema.

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 clear verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('rest-pose local X/Y/Z axes, hierarchy, dimensions, and mesh-weight coverage for selected bones'). It distinguishes from generic inspection tools by enumerating exact data attributes, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inspect_rig or probe_bone_deformation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies an inspection context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over others in the sibling set (e.g., inspect_rig for overall rig structure or probe_bone_deformation for deformation specifics).

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