ptfx_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — detail=true expands output to every keyframed property and its keys — but says nothing about error behavior for a bad path, output format, or size/verbosity cost of detail mode.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with verb and resource before the parenthetical inventory. The dense comma lists are heavy but each item carries information about return content; little could be removed without losing coverage.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does so by enumerating the summarized sections and the effect of detail mode. Remaining gaps — output encoding, failure modes on a non-particle path — are minor for a read-only inspection tool.

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 coverage is 50%: 'path' is documented only as 'absolute path', while 'detail' is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for 'detail' by explaining the expansion it causes, and the mention of '.ypt or .ypt.xml' tells the agent what file types 'path' accepts, but no default value or cost trade-off for detail is given.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('a particle dictionary (.ypt or .ypt.xml)') and then enumerates exactly what the summary contains: effects, emitter rules, particle rules, textures, drawables. That inventory also implicitly separates it from the mutating siblings (ptfx_edit, ptfx_install, ptfx_merge), so an agent knows this is the read/inspect path.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named, even though the sibling list contains obvious candidates for inspecting vs. editing or unpacking the same files. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Summarise'.

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