get_anim_state_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Get'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by enumerating the returned structural content (layers, states, transitions, conditions, parameters), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then enriches with a concise list of included data. No filler or redundant content.

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 one well-documented parameter and readOnly annotations, the description is largely sufficient. Since there is no output schema, the explicit 'including' list partially fills the gap, though it does not describe edge cases like missing assets or the exact nesting of returned structures.

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%, and the assetId parameter is already described as 'Anim state graph asset id'. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('anim state graph asset'), and the nature of the payload ('complete structural data... including layers, states, transitions, conditions, and parameters'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_anim_state_graph or get_animation_events.

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 clearly implies this tool is for reading an anim state graph's structure, but it does not explicitly compare it with alternatives such as modify_anim_state_graph or get_animation_events, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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