get_animation_presets

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 implies a read-only lookup and discloses that the values are the ones 'supported by this bridge', which is useful scoping. It says nothing about response shape, pagination, or whether the preset list is static or file-dependent, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The resource is front-loaded and the downstream usage note follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and how to consume it. The remaining gap is that the caller cannot anticipate the shape of the returned preset/transition/easing data, but for a simple enumeration 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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to document and no semantic burden to carry. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource: it lists curated motion presets plus the official Figma transition and easing values the bridge supports. The scope is concrete enough that an agent knows what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_animation_styles, which is the one nearby name that could be confused with it.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the output: feed the values into set_reactions, upsert_reaction, set_transition_reaction, and set_smart_animate_reaction. That is real routing guidance. It gives no when-not condition or statement of when this lookup is unnecessary, so it stops short of a 5.

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