getIKChains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get multiple IKChains by IDs', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors, partial results), or the return format. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks critical behavioral details like error handling or output structure.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get multiple IKChains by IDs'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what IKChains are, how results are returned (e.g., array, object), or error cases. For a tool in a 3D modeling context with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use without relying on external knowledge.

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 description mentions 'by IDs', which aligns with the single parameter 'ids' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'ids' is described as 'IKChain identifiers'), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It doesn't provide additional context like ID format or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get multiple IKChains by IDs' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (IKChains), with the scope 'by IDs' indicating retrieval of specific items. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listIKChains' (which likely lists all) and 'getIKChains' (singular), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about differentiation.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'listIKChains' (for listing all) or 'getIKChains' (if a singular version exists), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing valid IDs. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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