inspect_object_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates the exact data returned, which gives a clear picture of the tool's output. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, though side effects and error behavior are not explicitly addressed. The specificity of the return data makes the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 a single, compact sentence that lists the key data types in a scannable form. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes to the purpose. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description gives a clear list of what the tool returns, and since an output schema exists, the return structure is covered. However, it does not address edge cases such as objects without animation data or whether the tool only works on visible objects. For a single-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, this is largely sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter, object_name, but the schema provides no description (coverage 0%). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, such as naming conventions or format expectations. Since the agent must rely solely on the parameter name, this is a gap, though the parameter is straightforward.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('object animation data'), and enumerates the exact data types returned (actions, F-curves, keyframe values/handles, constraints, NLA strips). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_scene or inspect_rig, which target different scopes.

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 implies usage for inspecting an object's animation data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like inspect_rig or inspect_scene. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and scope.

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