Sample Object Transform at Frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does describe the core behavior: evaluate at each requested frame and return the transform. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as playhead movement or scene-evaluation cost, despite the existence of the restore_time parameter, and it does not clarify return structure in the absence of an output schema.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and scope, and the second provides a concrete use case. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 rich schema with all six parameters documented, enums, and constraints, plus a clear two-sentence description, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema and explicit side-effect disclosure is a minor gap, but the overall context is sufficient for this read-style sampling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, instead relying on the schema descriptions for frames, handle, fps, space, format, and restore_time. This is adequate but not additive.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate the scene at each requested frame and return the object's transform.' This clearly conveys a sampling/read operation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool such as set_transform, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Useful to verify alembic / constraint / xpresso-driven animation' provides concrete when-to-use context, and 'without writing a bespoke exec_python sampler' identifies an alternative approach to avoid. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to a named sibling, but the guidance is clear.

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