Get Keyframes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool reads keys, returns a specific data shape, preserves fractional frame positions, and clips inclusively without rounding subframes. This is meaningful behavioral detail, though it does not mention edge cases such as empty results or invalid handles.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the core action and resource, then provide return format, precision behavior, and optional bounds semantics. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the return type and key edge-case behavior, while the fully documented input schema covers all parameters. The addressing modes and clipping semantics are explained well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 already documents all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between the path and the legacy param_id/component addressing modes, and by clarifying the inclusive clipping semantics of start_frame/end_frame. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read keys' using either a full path from list_tracks or a legacy param_id/component. It also states the exact return shape [{frame, value, interp}] and clarifies that fractional frame positions are preserved, which distinguishes this from related keyframe tools like set_keyframe, delete_keyframe, and get_fcurve.

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 gives clear context on how to invoke the tool: use a full path obtained from list_tracks, or use the legacy param_id/component alternative. It also explains the meaning of optional start_frame/end_frame bounds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only purpose is sufficiently clear from the wording.

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