get_animation_tree_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: recursion ('recursively'), and specifies the scope of the dump. It does not mention error handling or return format, but the term 'Dump' and the tool name imply a read-only inspection, which is clear enough.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately lists the content. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core action and content, but it does not specify the return format or explicitly clarify the node_path parameter. Given these gaps, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent needing to interpret the output.

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 only parameter, node_path, has no schema description. The description indirectly suggests that it points to an AnimationTree ('an AnimationTree's root graph'), but does not explicitly define the parameter's format or domain. Given 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is sufficient to infer meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Dump' and identifies the exact resource: 'an AnimationTree's root graph'. It further lists the included elements ('state machine states and transitions, blend tree nodes and connections'), making it clear what the tool does and distinct from sibling tools like get_animation_info.

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 usage through its action ('Dump an AnimationTree's root graph'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced, so guidance is indirect.

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