get_property_keyframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (clip-relative, timeline, and source seconds/ticks plus values), which is genuine behavioral context, but it never states read-only semantics, error behavior when no keyframes exist, or any prerequisites.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return detail appended efficiently. No padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 helpfully covers what is returned, but for a 9-parameter tool with 0 required parameters and three parallel ways to identify the target (clip_name/index, track_type/index, clip_node_id, plus property_name/index and component_name/index), the description gives no help on which identifiers are needed or how they compose.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the domain framing ('specified component property of a timeline clip') and no extra meaning about how the name/index/nodeId parameters interact.

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 (inspect) and precise resource (all keyframes on a specified component property of a timeline clip). This clearly separates it from the write siblings add_property_keyframe, update_property_keyframe, and remove_property_keyframe, and from the enumeration helper list_supported_keyframe_properties.

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 read-oriented purpose implies when the tool is used, but there is no explicit when/when-not, no prerequisite stating that keyframes must already exist, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_supported_keyframe_properties for discovering keyframable properties.

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