list_animations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (vocabulary, speed keys, effects, mixin signatures), which is useful behavioral context. But it doesn't clarify whether this is a static reference dump, whether results are paginated, or whether authentication is needed. For a zero-param list tool with no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and then enumerates the four content categories. Well-structured with no padding. The parenthetical examples (fade-in, slide-up, etc.) are helpful but make it slightly longer than strictly necessary, though they earn their place by clarifying what 'vocabulary' means.

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?

The description is complete enough for the immediate call, but for a reference-discovery tool in a large ecosystem (34 siblings), it doesn't explain how this relates to get_animation or whether the output is a flat list or grouped structure. With no output schema and no annotations, and the tool being purely a listing utility, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps around return format and relationship to singular-retrieval sibling.

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?

Parameter count is 0, giving a baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to document, and the schema is empty. The tool takes no arguments, so there's nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 verb (List) and enumerates the resource contents precisely: animation vocabulary, speed keys, animate-on effects, and mixin signatures. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_animation (singular retrieval) and search_animations would, though there's no explicit sibling routing statement.

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 list format implies this is a discovery/enumeration tool, and the enumeration of content categories hints at what it returns. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_animation for detail), and no exclusions stated. Usage is implied by the content listing rather than stated.

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