spine_get_skins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output (names and summaries) but does not mention if the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires permissions. The behavior is inferred but not explicit.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, though perhaps too minimal; it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or usage context. For a two-parameter tool, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 50% (filePath has a description, includeAttachments does not). The description adds no additional meaning for parameters. includeAttachments is left unexplained beyond the default, which may confuse agents on what it controls.

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 returns skin names and attachment summaries, which is a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spine_get_slots or spine_get_skeleton_hierarchy by focusing on skins, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.

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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use or alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving skin data, but lacks when-not or context for choosing over siblings.

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