animation_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval by listing fields, but never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires an active document or animation, or what happens if no animation exists. For a zero-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a bare field list with no framing sentence. Front-loading is fine, but the fragment lacks a subject or verb to anchor it.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and the field enumeration does that partially. However, it omits the shape of the response (units, structure, whether layers are names or objects) and any precondition, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of a simple but undocumented tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The field list does at least signal what the call surfaces, though it is not parameter information.

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 is a noun phrase enumerating returned fields (frame rate, playback/clip range, current frame, animated layers) rather than a verb+resource statement. The resource is inferable from the name 'animation_info', but the description never says 'retrieves' or 'returns', so the agent must infer that this is a read operation distinct from animation_set or list_keyframes.

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 guidance at all: no mention of when to call this versus animation_set, keyframe, list_keyframes, or video_info. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name and the field list.

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