game_animation_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that travel and set_param modify the animation state, while get_state and get_params are read-only. No side effects, permissions, or reversibility are discussed.

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 very short (5 words) and front-loaded, mentioning the core concepts. However, it is slightly too terse, missing some detail that could be included without compromising conciseness.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It provides no examples, return value information, or usage patterns, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter names alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like paramName or stateName relate to specific actions, but the schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

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 'AnimationTree state machine travel and params' clearly indicates the tool handles state machine transitions and parameter manipulation on an AnimationTree node. It distinguishes from sibling tools like game_play_animation and game_animation_control by specifying the AnimationTree context, but could be more explicit about the supported actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_play_animation or game_animation_control. It lacks any context on prerequisites, such as needing an AnimationTree node or state machine setup.

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