animation_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description's 'Read-only' is redundant with that, but it adds useful content scope by naming what it surfaces (actions, clips, weights, playback state). No auth, rate, or pagination context is given.

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?

Two short lines with the category tag and safety flag front-loaded, followed by the resource scope. No filler sentences; every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only inspection tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough: what is read and what fields come back. There is no output schema, but the enumerated fields largely substitute for one.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics and the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate or misstate.

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 resource and enumerates its content: AnimationMixers with actions, clips, weights, and playback state. The [INSPECT] tag and 'Read-only' imply the verb. It does not name the mutation sibling (set_animation), so sibling differentiation is only indirect.

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 [INSPECT] prefix and 'Read-only' imply this is the read path for animation state, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The agent must infer it is the inspection counterpart to set_animation.

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