get_keyframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, what happens if the object is missing, or how the data is returned. The description lacks detail on error conditions or output format, which is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the core purpose first and the optional filter second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 lack of annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete. It does not clarify the meaning of 'data path' in the Blender context, any prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), or what the output schema contains (though an output schema exists, it is not part of the description). The tool is simple, but the description leaves critical details for correct invocation unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'data_path' as a filter but does not explain what constitutes a valid data path (e.g., 'rotation_euler') or the accepted format. 'object_name' is self-explanatory but not elaborated. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema field names, which is insufficient for a tool with completely undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('keyframe data from an object'), and an optional filter ('by data path'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like insert_keyframe and delete_keyframe. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read counterpart to insert_keyframe/delete_keyframe, nor does it indicate scenarios where other tools (e.g., clear_animation) would be appropriate. There is no explicit when/when-not context.

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