get_bone_pose_at_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get bone transforms' and provides parameter descriptions. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but safety profile and operational details are absent.

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 compact: a one-line purpose followed by an args list. Each sentence earns its place, and the args list directly maps to the schema without unnecessary fluff. No irrelevant information is present.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required params) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explicit read-only transparency and any guidance on time validity or bone name constraints. Still, for a straightforward getter, it covers the essential context.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does provide brief clarifications: 'Time in seconds' adds units, 'List of bone names to query' elaborates on the array type, and 'Unreal asset path' is minimally redundant with the parameter name. This is some added value, but the explanations are shallow and do not cover edge cases or formatting.

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 gets bone transforms at a specific time, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bone transforms'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_bone_tracks or get_skeletal_mesh_info by the temporal aspect, even without naming 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when bone transforms at a specific time are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be preferable. It doesn't mention alternatives like get_bone_tracks for accessing tracks over time.

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