game_animation_tree

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only hints at operations like state travel and parameter manipulation. It does not clarify that travel mutates the state machine state or that set_param changes animation parameters, nor does it mention read-only actions like get_state and get_params. This is minimal transparency for a tool that can both read and mutate.

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 extremely short and contains no wasted words, but it is more of a fragment than a properly structured description. It front-loads the core concept but does not include a verb or complete sentence, making it feel under-specified rather than elegantly concise. A more balanced single sentence would convey the same information more effectively.

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 complexity — 5 parameters, multiple action modes, no output schema, and no annotations — the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how actions relate to parameters, what the return values are, or what side effects occur. The description is only minimally sufficient to hint at the tool's purpose, leaving an agent to infer most of the calling contract from the schema 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 the schema already documents all parameters including the action options (travel, set_param, get_state, get_params) and parameter-specific fields. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage. It does not clarify relationships between actions and parameters, but the schema already covers that reasonably well.

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 names a specific resource (AnimationTree state machine) and indicates the operation areas (travel and parameters). It is distinct from sibling tools like game_play_animation and game_animation_control because it targets AnimationTree specifically. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full verb+resource statement, so it could be clearer about what the tool actually does.

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 such as game_play_animation, game_animation_control, or game_create_animation. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'AnimationTree'.

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