List Animation Tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior such as vector channels producing separate entries per component and describes the path encoding format. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'enumerate' and the output-focused wording strongly imply a non-mutating list operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the action, then the returned fields, then the vector-channel caveat and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately compensates by specifying each entry field, the full-path structure, and the vector-channel behavior. It also explains how the returned paths are consumed by sibling keyframe and track tools, which is enough context for a simple one-parameter enumeration tool.

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 only parameter, handle, is already documented in the schema as 'Entity whose animation tracks to enumerate,' and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional input semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb-resource pair 'Enumerate CTracks' and then lists exactly what each entry contains: name, full path, legacy param_id/component, dtype, and key_count. This makes it clearly distinct from track-editing siblings like set_keyframe, get_keyframes, and delete_track.

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?

It gives useful workflow context by explaining that the returned path is meant to be passed with the entity handle to get/set/delete keyframes or delete_track. This clearly positions list_tracks as the discovery step before track/keyframe operations, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct alternative.

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