blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists keyframes but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if the object doesn't exist), or pagination for large result sets. The description adds basic context but lacks critical operational details for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return details into the main description, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return format. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases or usage constraints), which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'object_name: Name of the object.' This clarifies what the parameter represents beyond the schema's title 'Object Name'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's role, though it could provide more detail (e.g., format or examples).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all keyframes on an object.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('keyframes on an object'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_keyframe' or 'insert_keyframe' beyond the 'List' action, which slightly limits its distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the object must exist or have animations), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_object_info' that might provide related data. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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