get_rig

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Read' and the word 'existing' clearly signal a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the description enumerates exactly which rig aspects are returned. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, listing the resource components efficiently.

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 no parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it leaves unclear which armature is being read (e.g., selected object, current scene, or a default rig), which could matter for correct invocation. A bit more context about the implicit target would make it fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids fabricating parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a specific resource ('existing Armature hierarchy, rest basis, constraints, and roles'). This clearly distinguishes it from pose-related siblings like get_pose and set_bone_pose, though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives.

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 guidance is given for when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as get_pose or get_viewport. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.

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