get_notify_track_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context: the results are returned in track order, and it explicitly names return fields 'track_names' and 'track_count'. The phrase 'without changing it' is largely redundant with readOnlyHint, but the ordering and return shape go beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the main action, then name alternatives, and a final short line documents the return shape. Every sentence contributes and there is no wasted prose.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough: what it does, when to use it, which siblings to use instead, and the return fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 required parameter, 'animation_path', and schema description coverage is 100%. The schema already documents it as the full asset path to a UAnimSequence, and the description does not add format or syntax details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 states a specific read-only verb and resource: 'List the notify track names of a UAnimSequence in track order.' It also names the exact underlying API call and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_anim_notifies and add_notify_track/remove_notify_track. An agent can select this over the alternatives without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit routing: use this tool for notify track names, use get_anim_notifies for events, and use add_notify_track or remove_notify_track to edit tracks. This is a clear when-to-use plus named alternatives with conditions.

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