get_anim_sequence_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'from its data model' nuance and a returns field list, but much of 'without changing it' merely echoes the annotations.

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 verb and resource, followed by a returns list that earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly padded by enumerating fields twice (in prose and in the Returns block).

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 correctly supplies the return shape, and annotations cover the safety/behavioral profile. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only sibling differentiation could be tightened.

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 is a single parameter (anim_sequence_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read a UAnimSequence') and enumerates exactly which fields are surfaced (skeleton, play_length, frame_rate, num_frames, track/curve counts, num_sync_markers, enable_root_motion, retarget_source, ref_pose_seq). This lets an agent distinguish it from neighboring reads such as get_anim_asset_info or get_skeleton_asset_info.

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 states the read-only intent ('without changing it') and routes a specific sub-task to the correct alternative ('Use get_anim_curve_names for the track and curve names'). That is useful routing, though it does not explicitly contrast with the other *_info siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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