describe_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a 'get' operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires an open project, has side effects, or any prerequisites. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 of 12 words, front-loading the key verb and resource. Every word is substantive with no redundancy.

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 parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool returns. Minor improvement could mention that it is a summary versus detailed output, but overall it is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds value by listing what the output contains (frame count, timing, motion patterns), which is informative beyond the empty schema.

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 the specific verb 'get' and clearly states the resource ('high-level description of the animation'). It lists concrete output aspects (frame count, timing, motion patterns), distinguishing it from siblings like list_frames and get_frame_diff.

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 usage for obtaining a summary but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools, it lacks exclusionary or comparative context.

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