Animation timing report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add output-shape context, which it partially does by enumerating what is reported (poses, intervals, durations, eases, holds). It says nothing about whether analysis is per-animation, per-skeleton, or whole-file, and gives no hint about how the limit parameter bounds output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the four things reported, with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the noun-list style leaves the subject (what the tool operates on) implicit.

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?

With 6 parameters, half undocumented, and no output schema, an agent lacks enough information to choose this over spine_reference_timing or spine_measure, or to understand how bones/limit/skeleton scope the report. The description covers the output conceptually but not the invocation semantics.

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 only 50%, and the description explains none of the ambiguous parameters: bones, limit, detail ('Per-bone segments'), or skeleton. The 'per segment' wording brushes against detail but never clarifies that detail enables per-bone breakdown, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 output ('timing structure from the keys: key poses and intervals, segment durations, ease type per segment, holds'), which tells an agent what it produces. However, it never states the verb or input source explicitly, and with near-identical siblings like spine_reference_timing and spine_measure, it does nothing to distinguish itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any sibling tool such as spine_reference_timing or spine_compare_animations. An agent must guess whether this is the right timing tool for its task.

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