get_anim_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses error behavior for unknown graphs, the exact-one-selector constraint, matching semantics, and hard prerequisites (AiCompanion gem native request 0.6.0+ and EMotionFX gem). It never explicitly states the operation is read-only, but 'Describe' plus the documented failure mode makes the safety profile clear.

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?

Purpose and selector constraint are front-loaded and the Args block is tight, but the middle paragraph enumerates return fields (nodes, transitions, parameters, node_groups, root_state_machine_id) that an output schema already covers, which is redundant for an agent and dilutes the high-value sentences.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers dependencies, selector exclusivity, id sourcing, name-matching rules and error behavior. The only unaddressed aspects are pagination/size expectations and an explicit read-only statement.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates: anim_graph_id accepts a number or digit string and is sourced from list_anim_graphs; file_name is matched exactly first, then by tail case-insensitively, with an example. This is meaning the bare schema does not provide.

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 ('Describe') and singular resource ('one EMotion FX anim graph'), and the phrase 'in full' contrasts it with the sibling list_anim_graphs, which enumerates graphs rather than returning one graph's contents.

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?

Gives a concrete selection rule ('Pass exactly one selector') plus the origin of the id ('from list_anim_graphs'), which tells the agent how to obtain the input. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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