rig_skin_weight_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the main safety behavior is covered. The description adds value by stating the output shape (vertices x bones) and pagination behavior, which are not present 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 core information is front-loaded in the first sentence and the description is short. The English and Chinese sections repeat the same content, so it is slightly less concise than a single-language version, but there is no filler.

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 paginated tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, and output shape. It does not specify the exact return record structure, but 'vertices x bones' plus the visible tool result is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret it.

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 have full descriptions in the input schema (limit, offset, objects), so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('skin weight table (vertices x bones)') and adds that it is read-only and paginated. The sibling list contains write-oriented skin tools like rig_skin_set_weight and rig_skin_auto_weight, so this tool's read role is unambiguous.

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?

Says it is handy for verifying weights before export, which gives a concrete use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only wording and sibling context make the choice clear.

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