anim_describe_montage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Inspect' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the listed components define exactly what is examined. It does not discuss error behavior or prerequisites such as asset loading, but the example and KB reference add useful context for a simple inspection tool.

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: a single purpose sentence, an Args line, a KB reference, and an example. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 inspection tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter semantics, an invocation example, and a KB reference. It lacks explicit usage differentiation and edge-case behavioral notes, but these are minor given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of 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 schema provides only a title and type for montage_path with no description. The tool description compensates by defining the parameter as 'Full montage asset path' and providing a concrete example value. This gives an agent sufficient semantic understanding of the parameter despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('Montage's slots, segments, sections, and notifies'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling montage mutation tools (e.g., anim_create_montage, anim_add_montage_slot) through the inspect-only scope, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the provided example imply the tool should be used to examine montage structure, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are given, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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