Get Keyframes

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

With readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral content: exactly which animation attributes are returned and the edge case that an unanimated property returns its static value. It omits what happens on an invalid path or layer, but the added semantics are meaningful.

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?

Compact two-clause sentence that front-loads the action and return contents, with the helper hint last. The semicolon-clause 'unanimated, its value' is terse to the point of being slightly opaque, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the shape of the returned keyframe data. However, for a 2-required-param tool at 0% schema coverage, the parameter semantics and failure behavior are left unexplained, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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% for both parameters, and the description never explains the 'path' format (string vs. array of string/number segments) or what layer_id refers to. Pointing at list_properties to obtain a path is the only param guidance, which is indirect and does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read all keyframes of one property') and even enumerates the returned fields (time, value, interpolation, temporal ease, expression). It also distinguishes itself from the write-side siblings set_keyframes/edit_keyframes by naming list_properties as the routing helper.

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?

Gives actionable context: 'Use list_properties to find the path' tells the agent the prerequisite step before calling this tool. It does not state when to prefer alternatives (e.g. set_keyframes vs edit_keyframes) or exclusions, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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