list_anim_graphs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites, version requirements, and the exact shape of returned data, but is silent on failure modes (missing gems) and does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, though 'List' implies it.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in sentence one, followed by return contents and prerequisites. The enumeration of return fields partially duplicates the output schema, but the prose stays tight and each sentence carries information.

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?

A zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and stated gem/version prerequisites needs little more. The description covers scope, source, and availability conditions; an agent has everything required to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('List every EMotion FX anim graph the engine holds'), and the word 'every' scopes it clearly against the single-graph sibling get_anim_graph. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites ('Needs the AiCompanion gem's native request (gem 0.6.0+) and the EMotionFX gem'), which tells the agent when the call will actually work. It gives no explicit when-not or alternative routing, but the read-all scope makes usage unambiguous.

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