rig_morpher_list

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it returns channel names with current values and supports pagination. It does not go into error conditions or return format, but the annotations lower the burden enough for this simple read operation.

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 and front-loaded, stating the action and result in the first clause. The bilingual repetition is economical and adds no fluff; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 listing tool with complete parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, that it is read-only, and that pagination is supported. It does not describe return structure or edge cases, but the tool's output is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, with limit, offset, and objects already documented including defaults and fallback behavior. The description adds little beyond 'paginated', which is already reflected in the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('every morph channel name and its current value on an object'). It clearly distinguishes this read-only inspection tool from sibling mutation tools like rig_morpher_add, rig_morpher_set_value, and rig_morpher_add_target.

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 its use case by stating it lists all Morpher channels and is read-only and paginated. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over related Morpher tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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