design_list_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 and discloses almost nothing: 'list' implies a non-mutating read, but there is no mention of what happens when a layer has no keyframes, whether a timeline must exist, or what ordering/format results come back in.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely tight.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about the shape or content of the returned keyframes, which the agent needs in order to use the result. The layerId sourcing question is also left open.

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 the single layerId parameter, but the phrase 'on a layer' does map directly onto it, so the description adds marginal meaning. It still gives no hint about where layerId comes from (e.g. design_list_layers) or its format.

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 (list), resource (keyframes) and scope (on a layer), which cleanly separates it from design_set_keyframe, design_remove_keyframe and design_clear_keyframes by verb alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether the layer must already have a timeline). The only signal is the verb 'list', which the agent must infer from the name.

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