Get reanimator settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description's one contribution beyond annotations is enumerating the fields that come back, which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but most field names (FlingMethod, ServerReanim, ClickFling, PhysicsRepRootPartFling) are left unexplained.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no waste, which is good, but it is a noun-list fragment with no front-loaded verb or purpose statement, so the reader must infer the action and infer what the listed identifiers mean.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it only partially delivers: it names the settings returned but clarifies meaning for just one entry (CharMove) while leaving the others opaque to an agent. For a simple parameterless read this is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical 'CharMove (Walk/Fly speed)' is a small bonus that hints at the returned value semantics without any input parameter to describe.

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 is a bare comma-separated list of field names (SelectedReanimator, Reanimator, FlingMethod, etc.) rather than a sentence stating the action and resource, so it largely restates the title 'Get reanimator settings'. It does scope what is read, which helps distinguish it from reanim_set_reanimator_settings, but it gives no basis for choosing it over reanim_get_root_settings or reanim_status.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this should be called versus reanim_get_root_settings, reanim_status, or reanim_get_customization, and no prerequisites or context such as whether the API must be running. The only implied usage signal is the 'get' verb in the name.

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