Get SaveData

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is raw (vs typed) and oriented to debugging, which is useful, but it does not surface the size/perf implications of the optional huge ModuleConfigs payload.

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 clauses, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 trivial one-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could say a bit more about what the top-level summary contains or the cost of the optional flag, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single includeModuleConfigs param is already documented as including a 'huge ModuleConfigs map'. The description adds no extra meaning about that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Return) and resource (raw SaveData keys, with the two sections it contains), and explicitly contrasts with the typed getters siblings. It is easy to distinguish from reanim_get_customization, though 'SaveData keys' remains somewhat abstract without further context.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('useful for debugging') and names an alternative ('prefer the typed getters for edits'), implicitly steering the agent away from using this for edits. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named sibling tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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