creature_animations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: data was read from the editor on a specific date and the records include domain-specific fields such as inItsHands and atMs. It does not cover errors, pagination, or rate limits, but it adds meaningful transparency for a catalog tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a long, dense sequence of run-on sentences with parentheticals and Chinese terms. Much of the domain detail is useful, but the parameter behavior is buried rather than structured, making the definition harder to scan than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a substantial amount of work by naming returned fields and explaining the relationship to creature skills and animation timing. It is still somewhat ambiguous about the full output shape and the interaction between the two parameters, but it is largely complete for its use case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that omitting creature lists creatures and that query filters to creatures with matching animations, with useful examples like digging and attacks, but it never clearly states that the creature input is an integer creature id or how query behaves when creature is also supplied.

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 identifies the resource as the animations of complex creatures and states the returned fields (id, name, length, loops), plus the no-creature mode that lists creatures. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling that consumes animations (scene_add_creature_skill), though it never uses a crisp verb like 'list' and the phrase 'by creature' is slightly ambiguous.

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 explains the practical context: creature skills play these animations, and querying without a creature returns which creatures have known animations. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a competing catalog tool, but the intended discovery workflow is clear.

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