x3d_animation_info

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that this is a read-only reference operation through words like 'Explain' and 'Provides reference documentation.' It also specifies the behavior for each topic, giving clear expectations of what the tool will return. This fully carries the transparency 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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a brief explanation and a compact Args list. There is no filler or repetition; every line adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simple interface and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers how to invoke the tool and what to expect. The only minor gap is not describing return value structure, but that's covered by the output schema, so it's complete.

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 schema only defines a generic string parameter with 0% coverage, so the description must provide all meaning. It does so thoroughly by listing the five accepted values ('interpolators', 'timesensor', 'routes', 'examples', '') and what each returns, effectively replacing schema enums.

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 explains X3D animation concepts and lists available interpolators, with a specific reference to event-driven animation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x3d_animate (creating animations) and x3d_route (creating routes).

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?

It provides explicit guidance on what topic strings to use and what each returns, and says 'Call with no topic for a general overview.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when you want to actually create an animation or route), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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