get_document_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' plus the enumerated read fields clearly signals a non-mutating inspection of the active document, which is the key behavioral signal. It does not say what happens if no document is open or whether the call has side effects on document state, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource stated first and the returned fields enumerated. No filler, no redundancy, nothing that could be trimmed.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is the only place return values can be documented, and it names four of them. Minor incompleteness remains: 'size' is ambiguous (pixel dimensions vs. file size) and the no-document-open case is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no targeting arguments are needed by specifying the 'active' document, which preempts the question of how the target is selected.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' paired with a concrete resource ('the active Animate document') and an enumerated return set: name, size, frame rate, timeline names. An agent immediately knows this is a document-metadata read. It does not name or contrast with siblings like run_jsfl or edit_timeline, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to inspect the currently open document before doing something else, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion against alternatives such as run_jsfl (which could also read document state). No prerequisites are stated.

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