anim-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly mentions 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, but does not elaborate on return format, error handling, or side effects. The read-only disclosure is helpful but minimal, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It wastes no words and efficiently conveys the core functionality, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only report of two data points) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns. It does not discuss prerequisites or error conditions, but these are implied for a simple inspection tool. The description is reasonably complete for this level of complexity.

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 schema has a single optional parameter 'object' with a title specifying its purpose, but the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by adding any parameter context. The schema title provides some value, but the description adds nothing, resulting in a low score.

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 identifies the tool as an animation report for an object, specifying what it reports (frame range, f-curve count). It distinguishes itself from sibling anim-* tools which are primarily operational (set frame, insert keyframe), making the read-only report purpose 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?

The description implies usage for inspecting an object's animation data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like anim-timeline or anim-keyframes. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, making the contextual guidance weak but not misleading.

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