animation_getKeyframes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get keyframe data' but does not mention what the returned data looks like, whether the tool is read-only, what happens if no keyframes exist, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a read tool.

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?

A single sentence that is precise and front-loaded. No filler or redundancy. It earns its place and leaves the schema to handle parameter details.

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 simple read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what 'keyframe data' includes (e.g., times, values, interpolation), leaving some ambiguity about the return structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'channel' and 'layer' without detailing parameter formats, defaults, or relationship to the return value.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('keyframe data'), and the scope ('for a specific animation channel on a layer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like animation_setKeyframe, animation_deleteKeyframe, and animation_getFrameState, which are either mutations or different reads.

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 the use case: when you need keyframe data for a specific channel and layer. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over the sibling set/delete tools.

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