animation_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read operation. The description adds the specific data fields listed, but does not provide additional behavioral context (e.g., performance, state changes). Given annotations, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and data scope, earning a top score.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description fully specifies what is listed (mixers, actions, clips, weights, playback state). No output schema is needed, and the annotation coverage complements the description. The tool's functionality is completely described.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 uses specific verbs ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('AnimationMixers, their actions, clips, weights, and playback state'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on animation playback details, as opposed to other inspection tools like 'object_details' or mutation tools like 'set_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 vs alternatives is provided. However, its purpose is straightforward and distinct from sibling tools (e.g., 'set_animation' for modifications). A score of 3 reflects the minimum viable clarity, though explicit when-to-use could enhance it.

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