get_frame_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the constant result and index bounds, which is valuable. It does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, but the 'get' prefix and query-oriented wording make this a minor gap.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that leads with the core result and adds the precise constant and range. Every element contributes useful information with no waste.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is complete. It gives the value, the fact that it is constant, and the valid index range, so an agent can call and interpret the result correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description's mention of indices 0..7 is relevant to the returned value rather than parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: the number of frames per character animation. It also adds the concrete value 8 and the valid index range 0..7, making it unambiguous and distinct from other sibling tools.

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 phrase 'per character animation' gives clear context that this is the tool to consult when frame-count information is needed. No sibling tool appears to duplicate this responsibility, and no explicit exclusions are necessary.

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