get_anim_curve_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral and output context by specifying the exact return shape, including counts and lists, which is especially valuable because no output schema is provided. It still omits error behavior, permissions, and ordering/deduplication semantics.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the action and scope, and the second provides the return structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing return fields, but does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling tools that inspect animation curve data or sequence info.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for sequence_path, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no further detail about the parameter's format, valid values, or edge cases, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bone tracks, float curves, and transform curves on a UAnimSequence'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings like get_anim_curve_data or get_anim_sequence_info, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context entirely.

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