Sample Object Transform at Frames

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

The description states the tool evaluates the scene at each frame and restores the original playhead (via restore_time parameter). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, execution cost, or guarantees about idempotency. No annotations are provided, so the description partially bears the burden.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids redundancy, but a slightly more structured breakdown (e.g., listing limitations or expected output) would improve 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 should clarify what the return value looks like (e.g., dictionary per frame, structure). It only says 'return the object's transform' without detailing format or the number of entries, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, such as clarifying the interaction between parameters or output format details.

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 evaluates the scene at each requested frame and returns the object's transform. The use case for verifying alembic/constraint/xpresso-driven animation is explicitly given, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_mesh or set_transform.

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 indicates it's useful for verifying animation without writing a custom exec_python sampler, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with siblings like set_transform or get_mesh.

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