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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds useful context about the guide's content organization. It does not describe the exact return format or whether output is markdown, text, or structured JSON, but for a documentation tool this is not a major gap.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, usage timing, section map, and key content examples with no filler. The most important guidance ('read this before authoring a scene') is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter documentation tool with a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential sections and content boundaries. It leaves unstated what the tool actually returns, and since there is no output schema the description could have been slightly more explicit, but the purpose is still clear enough 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?

The schema already documents the single optional section parameter with a default and enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining what each enum value actually contains: 'scene' covers elements/keyframes/easing, while 'nodes' covers procedural animation graphs, clocks, springs, and repeaters.

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 identifies the tool as an authoring guide for the Keyframer scene JSON format, not a scene fetch or mutation operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_scene by focusing on the format and schema documentation.

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?

It explicitly says to read this before authoring a scene, giving a clear temporal placement relative to create/update/validate tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before authoring' context is sufficient for typical use.

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