production.animation_analyze_fcurves

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that filtering supports bone/channel/frame/severity/detail and native-unit thresholds, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what 'contextual findings' means or what categories of issues are reported.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler. The front-loading is acceptable, though the leading adjective 'Contextual' is vague rather than informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a read-only analysis tool in a crowded animation family with 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it does not say what the analysis detects, how filters map to options, or how it relates to overlapping siblings.

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 carry parameter meaning. It partially does by naming filter dimensions (bone, channel, frame, severity, detail) and native-unit thresholds, presumably within the opaque 'options' object. However, object_name is not described at all, and no value types, ranges, or syntax are provided for the filters.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus a filter list: 'Contextual F-Curve findings' does not state a clear action or what kind of analysis is performed on the F-Curves. It gives no differentiation from siblings like animation_analyze, animation_analyze_bezier, or animation_cleanup_fcurves.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no reference to the many sibling analysis tools. An agent must infer its role entirely from the name and the filter list.

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