cascadeur_list_tracks

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by specifying what data is returned (locks, visibility, keys, interpolation) and clarifies the distinction from layers, which is behavioral context. No contradictions 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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the distinguishing note about layers is placed at the end. It is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers what is listed and provides a distinction from layers. It does not specify the output format or scope (e.g., current scene), but given the simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is adequate for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per instructions. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details since none exist. It does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (animation tracks) and enumerates the specific attributes included (locks, visibility, keys, interpolation). It also adds a distinguishing note that tracks differ from additive animation layers, which helps separate it from layer-related tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 hints at usage by noting tracks differ from additive layers, implying this tool is for tracks rather than layers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_actions or get_pose, nor does it state when to use this tool vs. those. Usage is implied but not directly stated.

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