get_widget_animations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is largely redundant. It adds the note that remove_widget_animation accepts either name (useful context on the alias), but no auth, rate, or return-format behavior beyond what the annotations and inline return block carry.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded, followed by a compact return block. Minor redundancy in restating 'Read-only' against the annotations, but no padding.

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 supplies the return shape (asset_path, animations[], animation_count), which is exactly what an agent needs, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. Complete for a read-only listing tool.

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%, and the schema fully explains the blueprint_name/widget_bp_path alias and the path format. The description itself adds nothing about inputs, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (UWidgetAnimations of a Widget Blueprint asset), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It is distinguishable from the many sibling get_*/list_* tools and from add/remove_widget_animation 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?

Explicitly names the non-read alternatives (add_widget_animation creates one, remove_widget_animation accepts either name), which orients the agent toward the read path. However it stops short of stating when-not to use it or any precondition beyond the schema's 'it must exist'.

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