get_animation_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'locked' nature (implying immutability), the read operation, and the error condition when plan_animation hasn't been called. It does not mention whether it has side effects, but since it's a read of a locked file, that is implicitly safe. It also hints at return values (plan_id, user_facing_summary) without detailing the format.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding the relevant usage condition and error case. No wasted words; every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 tool has an output schema, which likely covers the return format, so that is not a gap. The description explains the error condition and the intended timing. However, it omits parameter explanations (as noted), which is a significant missing piece for an agent to invoke it correctly. Given the presence of an output schema and the read-only nature, it is not severely incomplete, but the parameter gap reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to do so: it never explains what 'name', 'animation_name', or 'output_dir' mean. The mention of plan_id and user_facing_summary gives partial context but does not map them to any parameter. An agent would be left guessing that 'name' is likely the character name and 'animation_name' the specific animation, but this is not explicit.

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 action ('Read the locked plan.json') and the resource it operates on (a character animation plan). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the use case relative to build_frame_animation and the error condition if plan_animation was never called, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to use it before build_frame_animation when you need the plan_id or to re-show user_facing_summary, providing a specific when-to-use condition. It also implies an ordering dependency ('Errors if plan_animation was never called'). However, it does not mention alternative tools for other plan types, but within the animation workflow this is sufficiently clear.

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