animation.action_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the risk and maturity labels ('Risk: read; maturity: L3') and notes that per-request argument checks and session policy still apply, which is mild additional context. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded with the command name and risk label. Every sentence earns its place, though the first sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent list operation with an output schema and no required parameters, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is that it never explains what is being listed or what the output represents, which an agent needs to know to interpret the result correctly.

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 75%, and the four parameters are all harness infrastructure fields (`_requestId`, `_authorization`, `_transactionId`, `_expectedSceneRevision`) that are already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the command as `animation.action_list` and labels it a read operation, but it never states what the tool actually does—what actions are being listed, from where, or what the output contains. The name and title imply 'list animation actions,' but the description itself is vague about the resource and result.

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 mentions that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, but that is a generic harness requirement, not usage guidance. Among the many animation-related siblings, there is no indication of when `animation.action_list` is the right choice.

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