get_bone_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the safe, read-only nature of the tool, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds the list of returned properties, which is useful context but introduces no additional behavioral nuance such as error conditions or side effects beyond what the annotation covers.

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: 'Get bone info: head, tail, roll, parent, children, constraints.' Every word contributes meaning, and the list format is efficient and scannable.

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 an output schema, so the description does not need to describe return values. However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance, leaving gaps in a 2-parameter tool. It is adequate for a simple getter but still has clear deficiencies given the zero-coverage schema and ambiguous 'object' parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining the 'bone' and 'object' parameters, but it does not. 'bone' is inferable as the bone name, but 'object' is ambiguous—it is likely the armature object but the description does not state this. No additional meaning is provided.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'bone info', then lists the exact attributes returned: head, tail, roll, parent, children, constraints. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_armature_info (which covers the whole armature) and set_bone_property (which modifies bone properties).

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 description implies the tool is used when someone needs to read bone attributes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_armature_info or list_bone_constraints. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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