get_keyframes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well. It discloses the return format (list of objects with frame and value as floats), the no-int-truncation behavior, the empty-list case (returns keyframes=[]), and explicitly states it is read-only and will not modify the scene or parameters. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second defines the return format and edge cases, and the third confirms side-effect-free operation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 low complexity, the description covers return values, edge cases, and side effects. However, the lack of parameter explanations is a notable gap because there is no output schema and the input schema is minimal. The description covers the tool's functional behavior but leaves parameter semantics incomplete, preventing a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meaning of ctx, path, or parameter. The description only mentions 'parm' (parameter) generically. While the tool name gives some hint, the parameter roles remain underspecified, making it hard for an agent to infer required values without additional context.

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 states the tool's action ('读取 parm 的全部关键帧') and resource (all keyframes of a parameter). It distinguishes itself from sibling keyframe tools like set_keyframe and delete_keyframe by emphasizing read-only behavior. The specific verb and resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating this tool only queries state and does not modify the scene or parameters. It implicitly guides when to use it (for reading keyframes) versus alternatives (set/delete keyframe tools). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving a small gap.

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