rig_list_bones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' claim in the description adds no new information. However, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the tool supports pagination (via limit/offset) and that the optional root restricts results to a subtree. These are non-obvious behaviors that an agent needs to know and which are not in the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and then provides supplementary details (read-only, pagination, optional root). The bilingual format is efficient and does not waste words. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent and key modifiers (pagination, scoping). The absence of output format details (e.g., fields of each bone) is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the fact that agents can invoke it and inspect results. The description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

All three parameters (root, limit, offset) have descriptions in the schema (coverage 100%), and the description itself restates the root behavior but adds no new detail. The meaning of each parameter is fully captured by the schema, so the description adds no extra semantic value. 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 verb (list), the resource (all bones of type BoneGeometry) and the scope (entire scene, or subtree). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from generic object-listing tools like list_objects by specifically targeting bone geometry. The bilingual text reinforces clarity.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: when you need to enumerate bones in the scene. It notes the optional root parameter for subtree scoping. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use list_objects for other geometry'), the specificity of 'bone (BoneGeometry)' makes the use case obvious. No misleading guidance.

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