inspect_rig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is inspection (read-only) and enumerates the exact aspects inspected, which is genuinely informative. But it adds nothing beyond the action and scope list — no error behavior, return characteristics, or side-effect notes that the name and enumeration don't already imply.

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 ~20-word sentence that front-loads the verb 'Inspect' and efficiently enumerates the inspected aspects. Every word earns its place with zero 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 tool has one self-explanatory parameter and an output schema that covers return structure, so the description need not explain outputs. It fully enumerates the inspection scope. Minor gaps — no explicit sibling routing and no parameter-format guidance — keep it from a 5.

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 the single armature_name parameter — yet it never mentions the parameter at all. The name is self-explanatory, but no format, naming-convention, or qualification guidance is provided for the tool's only required input, leaving a gap at 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?

Uses the specific verb 'Inspect' against a defined resource ('generated asset's armature') and enumerates six distinct aspects it covers: armature hierarchy, rest pose, pose transforms, deform flags, mesh bindings, and animation actions. This enumerated scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_scene, inspect_bone_axes, and 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?

The broad scope across six aspects implies this is the general-purpose rig inspection tool, in contrast to narrower siblings like inspect_bone_axes (axes only) and probe_bone_deformation (deformation only). However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over those alternatives or names any exclusion conditions, leaving the routing to inference.

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