get_keyframes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by using 'get'. The description adds the data_path filtering context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or edge cases. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word adds value, and the example is useful without being verbose.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, 1 required), has an output schema, and is annotated as read-only. The description covers the core behavior and key parameter. It could explicitly mention that omitting data_path returns all keyframes, but that is implied by 'optionally filtered'. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains data_path with concrete examples ('location', 'rotation_euler') and implies the object parameter, but it does not fully describe the semantics of object (e.g., name/path expectations) or explicitly state that data_path is optional (though the example suggests it). It covers the essentials but leaves some gaps.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('keyframes on an object'), and the optional data_path filter adds precision. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like set_keyframe or delete_keyframe.

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 (retrieve keyframes for an object, optionally filtered by data_path) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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