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. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the property has no keyframes, or whether it returns keyframe values, times, or both. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue. The structure is fine, but the content is too sparse.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify the target property (e.g., by name or path), how to identify the composition and layer, or what the return format is. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The schema lists five parameters (compId, compName, property, layerName, layerIndex) but the description only mentions 'property', leaving the agent to guess how to identify the composition and layer. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 'Get all keyframes from a property' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (keyframes from a property). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like set_keyframe, set_keyframe_advanced, and other keyframe manipulation tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention the context of a composition or layer.

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 doesn't mention that it retrieves keyframes for a specific property, nor does it clarify the need to specify a composition and layer. Sibling tools like get_expression or get_layer_info are not referenced, so the agent has no context for selection.

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