get_cels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (bounds, opacity, z-index, data), which matters because there is no output schema, and by stating that results are filtered by layer and frames.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation, defines the resource, lists the returned data, and states the filtering dimension with zero filler.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the filtering scope, while the schema carries all parameter defaults and constraints. It does not discuss batch-mode caveats or volume/pagination limits, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents defaults, allowed values, and formats for all 8 parameters. The description's 'filtered by layer and frames' merely restates a subset of those parameters without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('cels'), and defines a cel as a layer/frame pair with images, which clearly separates it from the sibling mutators update_cel, delete_cel, copy_cel and link_cels. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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-only listing intent is implied by 'Lists' and the annotations, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to alternatives such as get_pixels or get_sprite_info. Usage must be inferred.

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