get_animation_events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not burdened with stating that the operation is read-only. It adds the semantic detail that the event map is stable-id based and includes time and payloads, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as error handling, ordering, or determinism beyond what the annotation covers.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that specifies the action, resource, and key output content without any filler words. Every phrase contributes meaning, from 'stable-id event map' to 'time and optional number/string payloads'.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description conveys the essential purpose and the shape of the returned data (event map with time and optional payloads). Since there is no output schema, the description partially fills the return-format gap, though 'stable-id event map' could be defined more precisely for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 covers the single parameter assetId with 100% coverage, including a clear description ('GLB animation asset id') and bounds. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, 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 clearly identifies the operation: getting a stable-id event map for a GLB animation asset, with specific content details (time, optional number/string payloads). The verb 'Get' and the resource 'event map' are explicit, and the tool is clearly distinct from its sibling 'modify_animation_events' which writes rather than reads.

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 implies a read-only use case by using 'Get', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct reference to the sibling 'modify_animation_events' for write operations, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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