get_armature_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the output content (bone hierarchy and bone count), giving the agent expectations beyond the annotation. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It delivers the core purpose and output details in minimal words, earning a perfect efficiency score.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description fails to clarify the single input parameter, and there is no mention of prerequisites or error conditions. For a tool this simple, the gap is modest, but the parameter ambiguity makes it incomplete.

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 0% description coverage for the sole 'object' parameter. The description does not explain what 'object' refers to (e.g., the armature's name or path). While the tool name implies it is the armature, the parameter semantics are not explicitly clarified, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('armature info'), and enumerates the exact data returned (bone hierarchy, bone count). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_bone_info, which targets individual bones rather than the whole armature.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the name and description suggest it is for retrieving armature-level information, as opposed to bone-specific data from get_bone_info. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, so it meets the 'implied usage' criterion but lacks direct guidance.

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