anim_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a retrieval operation ('조회'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient—it lacks details on what 'defined animations' entails or how results are returned.

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, clear sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'defined animations' means, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a retrieval tool with no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage (objectId: '특정 객체의 애니메이션만 조회'), so the schema already documents the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 '정의된 애니메이션 목록을 조회합니다' (Retrieves a list of defined animations) clearly states the verb (retrieves/조회) and resource (animations/애니메이션 목록), but it's vague about scope—it doesn't specify whether this lists all animations globally or per-object, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like anim_css_add or anim_remove. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on when to use anim_list over other animation-related tools (e.g., anim_css_add, anim_remove) or object-related tools (e.g., object_list), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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