get_anim_asset_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing what the report contains (counts per asset type, length, samples) and restates read-only behavior. With no output schema, this enumeration is genuine behavioral context rather than a repeat of structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the routing note and a returns breakdown. The returns list is somewhat long, but it earns its place because no output schema exists; little else is wasted.

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 one fully documented parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value summary and sibling routing. It is nearly complete; only explicit when-not guidance is absent.

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 100% — the single asset_path parameter is fully documented with accepted asset classes. The description's parenthetical list of asset types (montage, composite, pose, sequence, blendspace, animation_asset) echoes the schema rather than extending it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Load any animation asset and report its class, skeleton and asset_type') and enumerates the asset kinds it handles. It explicitly distinguishes itself from detailed siblings (get_montage_info, get_anim_sequence_info, get_blendspace_samples), so an agent can tell the overview tool from the drill-down tools without opening any schema.

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?

Names three alternatives and the condition that selects them ('... give detail'), implying this tool is the general-purpose first look. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites, but the routing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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