godot_inspect_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the specific data it retrieves (bone hierarchies, transforms, etc.), which goes beyond the generic read-only hint. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 succinct sentence, front-loaded with the verb and specific data types. Every word is informative, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is an excellent example of concise writing for a tool definition.

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?

For a simple inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The output schema covers return format, and annotations cover safety. The description clearly states what is queried. The only gap is the absence of usage context, but that is handled under usage guidelines. Overall, nothing critical is missing.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description does not mention the 'skeleton_node_path' parameter at all, nor does it explain how to specify the target node. The schema provides a minimal description, but the description adds no value beyond that, leaving the agent without additional guidance on this critical parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Query') and the resource ('bone hierarchies, rest poses, transforms, and socket names'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like godot_setup_inverse_kinematics or godot_configure_bone_attachment, which are for modification, not inspection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For instance, it does not note that it should be used when the agent needs skeletal data that godot_get_node might not expose.

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