get_easing_curve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the curve is sampled and that CSS easing is also produced, which is useful output context, but says nothing about determinism, ranges, or what 'plus CSS easing' actually returns.

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 compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded, so there is no waste. However it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, cramming jargon without covering the parameters.

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 tool with an undocumented 4-value enum, an unexplained sampling range, and no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined. It never tells the agent what each intent means or what the two outputs look like, which is needed to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions the 'intent' enum values (settle, reveal, camera, cut) or the 'samples' count. The cryptic enum labels in particular are left completely undefined, which is a real gap for the one required parameter.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('sampled cubic-bezier curve'), plus a secondary output ('CSS easing'). An agent can tell this is a computation tool distinct from the manifest/template/audit siblings. It loses a point only because 'time-axis inversion' is unexplained jargon.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative or related sibling (e.g., validate_motion_spec, build_motion_timeline). The agent gets no signal about what context should trigger this tool.

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