List animations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses what the output contains (loop mode, length, per-bone keyframe counts) and implies a safe read, but says nothing about permissions, scoping to the active project, or result size/pagination for large rigs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are packed in efficiently and every clause earns its place.

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 simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields (loop mode, length, per-bone keyframe counts) covers most of what an agent needs. Only scoping and pagination caveats are 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies it operates on the whole current project with no filtering arguments.

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+resource ('List the project animations') and even previews the returned fields, which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like bb_create_animation, bb_set_animation and bb_play_animation. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the read-only list intent is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., use bb_play_animation to preview instead of list, or bb_add_keyframe to modify), and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is a read-only inventory call.

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