Listar GIFs animados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful context: that animations are drawn frame-by-frame in the canvas and exported GIF, and that static SVG shows only the reference frame. This adds real behavioral value beyond 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 compact yet informative, using exactly three sentences to convey purpose, behavioral detail, and usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what's returned (valid keys), what the animations are for, and how they manifest in different outputs. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the exact return format/structure, but for a key-listing tool this is acceptable.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description correctly explains the output semantics (valid keys) without needing parameter details.

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 tool returns valid keys for shape='anim' nodes, describing what animated GIFs are (frame-by-frame animations Fluyo draws). It distinguishes from siblings by being specifically about animation keys, complementing list_icons, list_colors, list_fonts which handle other resource types.

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 explains clearly when to use this tool: to get valid animation keys for anim-shaped nodes that signal states (loading, processing, error). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives/exclusions, but the sibling set of list_* tools makes the resource-type distinction implicit and clear.

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