blender_pose_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully characterizes the meaning of the metrics ('volume loss = candy-wrapper joints', zero skin weight) but never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or describes return format or side effects, leaving key behavioral traits implied.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core concept ('Deformation metrics of the CURRENT pose vs rest') before listing specifics. Slightly packed but no wasted framing.

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 read-only metrics tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the computed quantities reasonably well. However, it omits any documentation of the parameters and any explicit non-mutation statement, leaving gaps for the agent.

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% and the description never mentions the two required parameters (armature, mesh). With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving their meaning to be guessed.

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 states a specific resource and measurement domain ('Deformation metrics of the CURRENT pose vs rest') and enumerates the exact quantities computed (face-area ratio percentiles, stretched/squashed face fractions, volume ratio, zero-weight vertex count). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings like blender_rig_info or blender_compare_ref.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The 'CURRENT pose' phrasing hints that a pose must be set first (e.g., via blender_set_pose), but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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