list_animation_presets

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

Without annotations, the description clarifies that presets are engine-specific and the tool is a read-only listing. It provides engine-counts and filtering behavior but does not detail other traits like rate limits or return structure. Still, it is transparent enough for safe use.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides critical usage guidance.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (same engine), and optional filtering. No gaps remain for typical usage.

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 coverage is 50% (only `search` described). The description compensates by explicitly stating that presets are engine-specific and advising to match engines, which adds context beyond the schema's enum. The filtering behavior is also reiterated. This adds meaningful guidance for both parameters.

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 lists animation preset IDs for the `animate` tool, specifying engine-specific counts (Tripo ~97, Meshy ~675). This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like `animate` and other asset 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 description explicitly advises to pick presets from the same engine used for animation, and mentions optional case-insensitive filtering. While no alternative tools are named, the context makes usage clear for preparing presets before calling `animate`.

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