get_tween_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does disclose the shape of the returned data (targets, duration, elapsed time, progress). It does not state that this is a side-effect-free read, nor mention rate limits or behavior when no tweens are active.

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 that names the verb, the resource, and the payload with no filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It enumerates the key returned fields, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool, though it omits any indication of return format or empty-result behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema that the description needs to clarify. The quoted fields in the description describe outputs, not inputs, which is helpful but not a parameter concern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all active tweens/animations') and enumerates the returned data points. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_screen_state or list_active_programmables, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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 no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., get_screen_state, list_active_programmables, wait_for_idle) and no preconditions. Usage is only implied by the word 'active', so an agent must infer the debugging/inspection context.

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