list_animations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It indicates a read-only list operation and details return fields, but it does not address invalid node_path behavior, whether node_path must point to an AnimationPlayer, or if non-default libraries are excluded. Some key edge cases are left undefined.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every word 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential operation and return data. It could include more on error conditions or usage scenarios, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must clarify the parameter's meaning. It does so by stating the tool works on 'an AnimationPlayer's default library,' strongly implying node_path is the path to an AnimationPlayer node. This compensates for the lack of schema details, though it could be more explicit.

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 lists animations from an AnimationPlayer's default library and specifies the included attributes (length, loop mode, track count). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_animation_info or add_animation_track.

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 its use for inspecting animations in a player but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like get_animation_info or remove_animation. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios, making the usage guidance merely implicit.

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