get_animation_info

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 explains the return contents (frame range, fps, actions, etc.) and the optional object's effect, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or performance implications. The 'get' verb suggests read-only, but it is not explicit.

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, using a semicolon to separate the base behavior from the optional-object extension. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every part adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more explicit about usage, but it is efficient.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description lists the key return items (frame range, fps, action list, and per-object extras), which covers the essential information. It does not specify the exact structure or formatting, but for a getter tool this is adequate. The optional parameter's effect is also clarified.

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 has only one parameter 'object' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that providing an object adds action, fcurve summary, NLA tracks, and shape keys to the result. This gives the parameter meaning beyond its type and default.

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+resource: it retrieves animation info (frame range, fps, action list) and optionally object-specific details (action, fcurve summary, NLA tracks, shape keys). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_scene_info or get_object_info, which cover different scopes.

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 implies usage for animation data but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks exclusion conditions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the context from the name and description alone.

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