list_joints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (joint point name and P position), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only/non-destructive nature, error behavior, or limits. A list tool's safety profile is inferable but not stated.

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?

Two terse fragments with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. The telegraphic style is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than clean structure.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be restated, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin for a two-parameter tool. An agent gets no guidance on node_path format or the meaning/effect of max_joints.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'On a SOP' weakly implies node_path refers to a SOP node, but max_joints (default 256) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific resource (KineFX skeleton joints) and its content (point name + P) on a SOP node, which distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like get_parameter or list_children. The verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name rather than the description text, so it falls just short of a clean 5.

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?

'Mixamo/character inspect' hints at a context (inspecting Mixamo/character rigs) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Relevant siblings such as map_kinefx_joints and attach_kinefx_deform are never referenced, so routing is left entirely to inference.

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