list_build_animations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists animations for all items on a given slide, which is sufficient for a read operation. However, it does not mention any safety requirements, performance characteristics, or what happens for slides with no animations.

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 action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential information needed to use it correctly. It could be improved by noting that no animations exist if the list is empty, but overall it is complete for a simple 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (slideIndex) with a clear description in the schema itself. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'given slide,' so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 ('Lists') and identifies the resource ('all build-in and build-out animations') clearly. It specifies the scope ('for every item on a given slide'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_build_animation or remove_build_animation well.

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 for retrieving animations but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It assumes the agent will infer from the action, but without stating exclusions or prerequisites, it falls short of proactive guidance.

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