animation_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Get information' implying read-only and non-destructive, but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or cost (e.g., network or filesystem access). For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Category, Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, 3 required parameters) and the existence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the return type (JSON string) and mentions error handling. Missing details about the returned structure are likely covered by the output schema.

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 0% description coverage, but the description lists each parameter with a meaningful explanation (e.g., 'Path to the Godot project directory' for project_path). This adds significant value beyond the schema properties, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about an animation'. It distinguishes from siblings like animation_list (list animations) and animation_create (create animation) by focusing on retrieving details of a single named animation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that to list all animations one should use animation_list, nor does it provide conditions for use (e.g., 'use when you need details about a specific animation'). The agent must infer from description.

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