bone_getProperties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe the return format, potential errors, or any prerequisites. The mention of 'detailed properties' gives some context but not full transparency.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's function. The parenthetical list of example properties adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 getter with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It lists the types of properties returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. The examples help the agent understand the nature of the returned data.

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 fully describes both parameters (boneId and layerId) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'specific bone', which aligns with the params. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: getting detailed properties of a specific bone, with explicit examples (position, angle, scale, parent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bone_setTransform (which sets properties) and bone_selectBone (which selects a bone).

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 makes clear when to use this tool: when you need detailed properties of a specific bone. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is evident from the sibling list (e.g., layer_getProperties for layer-level info, mesh_getPoints for mesh points).

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