unreal-animation-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target a distinct asset type or operation, and argument descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate them. However, sync markers and notifies overlap conceptually, and the many AnimBlueprint getters (graphs, nodes, state machines, blend nodes) require careful reading to avoid confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
The verb_noun snake_case pattern is used consistently for most tools (get_, add_, remove_, set_, search_, audit_). Minor inconsistencies exist: delete_montage_section and delete_blendspace_sample use 'delete' while similar operations use 'remove', and edit_blendspace_sample uses 'edit' instead of 'set' or 'update'.
Tool Count2/5
With 61 tools, this greatly exceeds the 25+ threshold for a comfortable, scoped set. While the Unreal animation domain is complex, the sheer number feels overwhelming and could benefit from consolidation (e.g., merging related ABP getters or montage section operations).
Completeness3/5
The toolset provides extensive read and edit coverage for AnimSequences, Montages, BlendSpaces, and Skeletons, including notifies, curves, sync markers, sections, samples, and bone tracks. However, AnimBlueprint operations are entirely read-only (no state/node editing), and there are no create/delete operations for animation assets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.
Average 3.3/5 across 61 of 61 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states 'Add keys', which is a minimal mutation disclosure. It does not clarify whether existing keys are overwritten, whether times must be sorted, or what happens if the curve does not exist. The short description leaves these operational details hidden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The opening sentence is concise, but the 'Args:' block simply repeats the schema property names and types, adding no new information. The description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, with redundant content that does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (so return value documentation is not needed), the tool is a mutation with four parameters, no annotations, and no usage context. The description does not explain the relationship between times and values, nor any side effects or requirements, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter semantics. It merely lists the parameter names, which duplicates the schema's property titles, and does not explain that times and values are parallel arrays, or what asset_path and curve_name refer to in the Unreal context. This adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Add') and specific resource ('keys to a float curve'), making the primary function understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_curve, which adds a whole curve, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_curve or remove_curve. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the curve must already exist) or contrast with similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, asset modification behavior, or error conditions. It only states the intended action without any caveats or runtime implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a single purpose sentence and a structured Args list. Every line is necessary, but the text is under-specified, making it more brief than informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the presence of sibling montage-section tools, the description does not provide enough context about what a montage section is, how sections are ordered, or what the tool returns. The output schema exists but is not utilized in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the three arguments with one-line descriptions, but these largely repeat the schema's titles ('Asset Path', 'Start Time') and add minimal value. The only useful addition is 'Start time in seconds', but it lacks context about asset path conventions or section name constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a new section to a montage, using the specific verb 'add' and the resource 'montage section'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like delete_montage_section or set_section_time, and it restates the tool name without additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the basic action and doesn't mention prerequisites, common use cases, or what distinguishes this from other section-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', implying a write operation, but gives no details on side effects, overwriting behavior, coordinate ranges, or whether the BlendSpace must already exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args block is redundant with the input schema and doesn't add meaningful detail. It is not bloated, but every line in the Args section is already covered by the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention what the tool returns. For a tool with four required parameters and no annotations, more context is needed (e.g., return value, error conditions, coordinate system). The description leaves the agent to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the four arguments with brief labels (asset_path, anim_path, x, y) but these simply mirror the input schema property names/titles and add no extra semantic meaning. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what x/y represent, valid ranges, or any format expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a sample to a BlendSpace') with a specific verb and resource. The verb 'add' differentiates it from sibling tools like 'edit_blendspace_sample' and 'delete_blendspace_sample', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus available alternatives (e.g., get_blendspace_samples, edit_blendspace_sample). Prerequisites such as the BlendSpace existing or coordinate constraints are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects beyond the basic 'get' operation. It does not mention read-only status, return format details, error conditions, or any side effects (though likely none). The description lacks the transparency expected for a tool with no structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, one sentence plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the arg list is easy to scan. However, the arg list is redundant with the schema and the overall under-specification qualifies as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of ABP state machines and the abundance of sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed info' includes, how it relates to sibling tools, or any context for successful use. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but major contextual gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the three parameters with brief hints ('asset_path: Unreal asset path'), but these restate the schema titles almost verbatim. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves. No details on formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets 'detailed info about a specific state in an ABP state machine.' This provides a specific verb, resource type, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target whole machines, nodes, or transitions. However, the phrase 'detailed info' is somewhat vague about what exactly is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_abp_nodes or get_abp_state_machines. The description implies it is for state-level details but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without addressing consequences (e.g., what happens if the curve does not exist), reversibility, or side effects on the asset. The docstring adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is good for scanning, but it is under-specified. The single sentence plus docstring is concise but omits essential details, making it more under-specification than genuinely useful conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not explain return values, edge cases, or required preconditions. The presence of an output schema is not relevant because the description does not reference it, and the tool's behavior is not fully transparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section labels 'asset_path' as 'Unreal asset path' and 'curve_name' as 'Curve to remove', which provides minimal clarification but largely restates the parameter names. It does not explain expected formats, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Remove') on a specific resource ('a curve from an animation'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like add_curve or get_anim_curves, though it does not explicitly call out differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies removal, the description lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether the curve must exist or the asset must be loaded, and does not compare against similar removal tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Add metadata' without revealing whether existing metadata is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on duplicate metadata, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block. However, the Args block largely duplicates the input schema, which adds redundant structure without earning its place fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. It does not explain what metadata classes are valid, how metadata interacts with existing asset data, error conditions, or the relationship to sibling tools such as 'remove_meta_data'. The simple two-parameter signature reduces the burden slightly, but key context is still missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'asset_path' as an Unreal asset path, which adds some meaning, but 'meta_data_class: Metadata class name' merely restates the parameter name without explaining valid values, naming conventions, or how the class is resolved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add metadata') and the target resource ('an animation asset'), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'remove_meta_data' tool, though it does not elaborate on what metadata types or classes are supported.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_meta_data' or other add_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, or when this tool would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning whether the asset is modified in place, whether permissions are required, whether existing markers are overwritten, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose, though the Args section somewhat duplicates the schema's parameter list. It is well-structured and easy to parse, but not exceptionally lean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected output or return value, the effect on the animation asset, or any error conditions. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description should provide more context about what happens after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The Args block provides a one-line explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'asset_path: Unreal asset path'), which adds basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, the explanations are minimal and lack details like formats, constraints, or examples, keeping this at a baseline level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a sync marker to an animation.' This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that add different elements (e.g., add_notify, add_notify_state). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other mutation tools like add_notify or remove_sync_markers. It does not mention any prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action ('Add a virtual bone') without disclosing whether the change is persistent, whether it modifies the skeleton asset directly, what input validation occurs, or what the return value indicates. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a bulleted Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple 3-parameter tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of essential detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description still needs to explain the operation's context, effect on the asset, and parameter semantics. It covers none of these beyond the most basic action, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation that likely mutates an asset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides only terse labels: 'Unreal asset path to skeleton', 'Source bone name', 'Target bone name'. This largely repeats the parameter names and does not clarify the critical relationship between source and target bones (e.g., which acts as parent/child) or any expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: 'Add a virtual bone to a skeleton.' This is a specific verb+resource pattern that distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like get_skeleton_info and the counterpart remove_virtual_bones. However, it does not explain what a virtual bone is or how source/target bones relate, which slightly limits full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., skeleton must exist), and no mention of validation or expected context. The presence of remove_virtual_bones among siblings hints at a pair, but the description does not explicitly differentiate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get' implicitly suggesting read-only, but does not mention error handling, invalid paths, absence of linked layers, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second sentence lists the argument. It is well-structured for quick scanning, though perhaps too abbreviated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description could suffice, but it lacks essential context about what 'linked animation layers' are, how they relate to others, or when to use this tool. Given the large sibling set, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter asset_path is described as 'Unreal asset path' in the description, but this adds barely more than the schema's 'Asset Path' title. With 0% schema description coverage and no extra format or usage detail, the description fails to compensate meaningfully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'linked animation layers in an AnimBlueprint', making the core purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools that also retrieve AnimBlueprint data (e.g., get_abp_info, get_abp_graphs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any mention of side effects, prerequisites, errors, or idempotency. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is quite short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args section merely duplicates parameter titles from the schema, making those lines redundant. Overall, it's minimally sized but not optimally purposed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context such as what a 'bone track' is, whether the bone must exist, or whether this addition is reversible. With no annotations and minimal info, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds only 'Unreal' to 'asset_path' and repeats 'bone name' from the schema, which is nearly tautological. Given 0% schema description coverage, it does not adequately compensate with meaningful parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'add' and explicitly names the resource ('bone track') and target ('animation'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like remove_bone_track and set_bone_track_keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only use case is implied by the action itself, so it fails to provide discriminative usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only audit operation but does not explicitly state that it avoids modification, what constitutes an 'issue', or any behavioral side effects. The description is too thin to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose and the only argument. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'BlendSpace asset path', which essentially restates the parameter name and does not explain path format, expected asset type details, or how it influences the analysis.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('BlendSpace sample coverage'), plus the goal of finding issues. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_*' tools that merely retrieve data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many get_blendspace_* or other audit tools. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Compare' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't state this explicitly, nor does it reveal what happens during comparison (e.g., whether it just returns differences or also performs validation). The output schema exists, but the description doesn't clarify the nature of the comparison result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the tool's purpose stated first and parameters cleanly listed in an Args block. It avoids unnecessary wording and is well-organized for a tool with only two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no information about what 'compare' entails, the description is incomplete. While the output schema exists, the description doesn't explain what kind of comparison is performed or what criteria are used, which is essential for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly among the many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by labeling path_a and path_b as 'First animation asset path' and 'Second animation asset path', which is slightly more informative than the schema's 'Path A' and 'Path B'. However, it lacks details on path format or expected asset types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Compare' with the resource 'two animation assets', which clearly distinguishes it from the many getter and mutation tools in the sibling list. However, it doesn't specify what aspect of the animations is compared (curves, notifies, bones, etc.), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what kind of comparison it performs, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like get_animation_summary or search_animations. The description simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, potential errors, or any other runtime behavior. This is minimal and leaves the agent without insights beyond the primary action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the action statement, followed by an Args section. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for a one-line purpose statement, though the brevity limits the amount of useful information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what 'graphs' means in this context or what the output contains, and with many similar sibling tools, a bit more context would help avoid confusion. The presence of an output schema offsets some need to document return values, but the description alone is fairly sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description simply repeats the parameter name with a terse 'Unreal asset path.' This adds small semantic value by clarifying that the path is Unreal-specific, but it does not specify the expected format or provide examples, offering only marginal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('animation graphs') within an AnimBlueprint, clearly conveying the core function. Although it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_abp_nodes or get_abp_state_machines, the resource type is specific enough to be unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention any prerequisites, use case context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get core metadata' without explaining what fields are returned, whether the operation is purely read-only (though 'get' implies it), or any potential side effects. The ambiguous scope of 'core metadata' leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. It has no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a simple getter. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification, which prevents a higher score despite the efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 and an output schema (which presumably describes the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, and the ambiguous 'core metadata' leaves gaps about what the tool covers. This is a bare-minimum description for a simple tool with clear room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('/Game/Montages/AM_Attack') and specifying that asset_path is an Unreal asset path. This compensates for the bare schema field (which has no description), but it doesn't fully elaborate on constraints like asset existence or path validation. The example clarifies the format but the description remains thin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get core metadata for an AnimMontage.' It uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource (AnimMontage). However, the term 'core metadata' is vague, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_montage_sections or get_sync_markers, which also return montage-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, exclusions, or trade-offs. This leaves an agent unable to decide between get_montage_info and other montage-focused getters without additional reasoning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Get metadata' which implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose behavior like valid asset path requirements, error cases, or whether it only works on loaded assets. It adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a brief parameter line. Every word earns its place, though the Args section is redundant with the schema. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, it lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or behavioral notes. For a one-parameter getter this is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions, so the description adds 'Unreal asset path' which provides minimal extra meaning over the simple 'Asset Path' title. It doesn't explain format or examples, but for a single clearly-named parameter this is below-average yet not absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get metadata for a SkeletalMesh' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from the many animation-related sibling tools. It's slightly generic ('metadata') but unambiguous in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context provided. It simply states the operation without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets sync markers but does not mention whether it is read-only, error behavior, or constraints on the asset_path format. The verb 'get' hints at a read operation, but side effects and failure modes are unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with one sentence and an args list. It is well-structured for a tool of this simplicity, avoiding redundant wording. It could have been slightly more informative without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too minimal to be fully complete. It lacks context about asset path conventions, asset type restrictions, and when to prefer this tool over sibling getters. The description barely covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only a title for asset_path, so the description's parameter explanation is crucial. It merely repeats 'Unreal asset path' without offering format examples, path conventions, or constraints beyond the string type. This adds minimal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as retrieving sync markers from an animation sequence, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools by naming the exact data type targeted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or how it relates to alternatives like get_anim_sequence_info or add_sync_marker. The name implies usage, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are persistent. For a setter, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point, with a clear one-sentence function statement followed by a structured Args block. It avoids fluff, though the overall structure could be more integrated with natural language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error behavior, asset load prerequisites, or any side effects. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves many practical questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief parameter meanings and concrete examples for additive_type and base_pose_type values, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or the exact format of asset_path beyond calling it an 'Unreal asset path'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set additive animation type' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameters indicate the target asset and values. It distinguishes itself from the many getter tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly compare with other set_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or effects are mentioned. The description only states the one-liner and parameter list without any context on typical use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It simply says 'set' without stating whether the modification persists, requires specific permissions, or affects existing blend settings. The mutation nature is implied but not detailed, which is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with a summary line followed by a clear args list. Every line adds value, and the format is scannable. It loses a point for being sparse but not wordy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the write nature of the tool, the description omits return behavior, prerequisites (e.g., the asset_path must refer to a montage), and clarification of blend_out_trigger. The optional parameters' defaults are only in the schema, not described, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for each parameter, adding units for blend times and clarifying asset_path as an Unreal path. However, blend_out_trigger remains ambiguous, and no defaults or optional semantics are explained beyond what the schema already provides via titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Set montage blend settings,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The parameter list further specifies that it modifies blend in/out times and auto blend out. However, it does not differentiate from sibling set_* tools or montage getters, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_rate_scale or get_montage_info. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action without any behavioral details. It does not disclose whether changes are persistent, require saving, or have side effects. Since no annotations are available, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to address these concerns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is concise and redundant with the schema but does not include unnecessary fluff. It earns its place with just one sentence and a compact parameter list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks essential context regarding usage and effects. The output schema exists but is not explained, and the practical impact of changing rate scale (e.g., speed multiplication) is not mentioned. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies asset state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameters are only minimally described: 'asset_path' is noted as an 'Unreal asset path' and 'rate_scale' as 'New rate scale value.' This adds some context beyond the schema's titles and types but lacks details on allowed values, units, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, more elaboration would be needed to score higher.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the rate scale of an animation.' The verb 'Set' and the resource 'rate scale' are specific enough to distinguish it from sibling getters and other setters like set_root_motion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, applicable animation types, or whether it should be used in conjunction with getter tools. This is a significant gap for a tool in a large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation without revealing side effects (e.g., modifies the montage asset), whether changes are reversible, or any requirements like the section names being valid. For a mutation tool, this is a notable transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose in the first line. The argument list is compact and directly follows, with no filler. Every sentence and phrase earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the core action and required inputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and minimal schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the expected effect on the montage, the need for section names to exist, and any return value. The output schema exists but is not visible, and the description does not explain what happens after setting the next section. Significant gaps remain for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief but useful semantic annotations for each parameter: 'Unreal asset path', 'Current section name', and 'Next section to play'. These explain the role of each parameter better than the schema's generic titles, but they lack detail on formats, constraints, or relationship to existing montage sections.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set the next section for a montage section.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that conveys the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like set_section_time (which sets a time value) by the explicit 'next section' terminology, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus other montage section tools (e.g., set_section_time, add_montage_section), nor does it mention any prerequisites such as section existence or valid section names. The purpose is implied but not contextualized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and requirements. The description only says 'Add' and lists parameters; it does not mention that this modifies the animation asset, whether permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or if the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with one clear sentence for purpose and a clean parameter list. Every line adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse, making it efficient for the AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain whether the asset must be loaded, how the tool interacts with existing notifies on the track, or failure behavior. It also doesn't position itself relative to add_notify_state or add_notify_track. Given 4 required parameters and no annotations, a more complete description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only bare titles (e.g., 'Asset Path'), and the description adds useful context: 'Unreal asset path', 'Notify track name', 'Trigger time in seconds', and an example for notify_class. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but could be more detailed (e.g., time format or constraints). It meets the minimum expectation but doesn't fully elaborate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a notify to an animation.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('notify' to an 'animation'), making the purpose immediately obvious. The parameter list further clarifies the operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_notify_state or remove_notifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 its siblings (e.g., add_notify_state for state notifies). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the notify track must already exist, or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for point notifies only'). With multiple related tools, this lack of usage context is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses none. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the asset path is invalid, or what 'core metadata' includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a minimal Args block. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks usage guidance and does not clarify what 'core metadata' encompasses, leaving some ambiguity for tool selection. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive for a tool with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines 'asset_path' as a string with a title, providing zero description coverage. The description compensates by clearly defining the parameter as an 'Unreal asset path' and offering a concrete example, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'core metadata for an AnimBlueprint', which combines a specific verb (Get) with a resource (AnimBlueprint metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific aspects like graphs, nodes, or state machines, though 'core metadata' remains somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions alternatives nor provides contextual cues (e.g., 'use this for basic info before diving into graphs'). The only extra is an example asset path, which does not aid selection among the many sibling get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the obvious write operation, the description provides no behavioral details (e.g., whether existing notify states are replaced, whether the track must exist, any side effects). Does not complement any annotations since none are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with a single sentence introducing the action, followed by a structured list of parameters. The Arg list is somewhat redundant with the schema's properties but necessary here due to zero schema descriptions. The overall structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 required parameters and an output schema, but the description omits important context: when to use it, whether it modifies the asset destructively, what the output contains, and typical usage scenarios. With no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke it confidently in diverse situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args block that gives a sentence for each of the 5 parameters, providing minimal semantics (e.g., 'time' is 'Start time in seconds'). While schema itself has zero descriptions, this coverage helps somewhat, though it remains shallow and lacks details like path formatting or class naming conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear action: adding a notify state to an animation. Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_notify and add_notify_track, which add points or tracks, respectively. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives such as add_notify or set_notify_time. Lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose whether this is read-only, what the audit outputs, whether it performs side effects, or how it handles edge cases. 'Audit' is vague and could imply anything from a summary report to a detailed analysis. No behavioral traits beyond the verb are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus two argument clarifications. It front-loads the core purpose and spends no words on fluff. Every line earns its place; the formatting is clean and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema being present (which covers return values), the tool is otherwise underspecified. With only 2 optional params and no annotations, the description is minimally viable for triggering a simple audit operation, but it lacks detail on expected behavior, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: asset_path is a specific asset, folder is a folder to scan, and omitting asset_path triggers a folder scan. This compensates partially, though it doesn't clarify interaction when both are provided or whether either is required. The description adds value over the bare schema, meeting the minimum viable threshold.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Audit notify usage across animations' with a specific verb 'audit' and resource 'notify usage across animations', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_notify or get_anim_notifies. However, it lacks detail on what auditing entails (e.g., counts, duplicates, unused notifies), preventing a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The Args section implies a folder scan vs. specific asset selection, but there is no indication of when to prefer this tool over search_by_notify or get_anim_notifies, nor any exclusion criteria. The guidance is entirely parameter-focused, not tool-selection-focused.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but gives no detail on aggregation behavior, recursion into subfolders, handling of invalid paths, or performance implications. This minimal disclosure is a significant gap for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—a one-sentence summary and a brief Args section. Every word earns its place, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one simple parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'stats' encompasses, whether the query is recursive, and what the returned data represents. The output schema may help, but the description itself is under-specified for fully understanding the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for the single parameter (0% coverage), but the description's Args section defines it as 'Unreal folder path, e.g. /Game/Animations', providing type context and an example. This partially compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't explain path constraints or whether the folder must be relative to /Game.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('folder-level animation stats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual assets or specific components. However, 'animation stats' is vague—it doesn't explicitly say what metrics are included (e.g., counts, durations, sizes), which leaves some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies the folder-level scope via the name and phrase 'folder-level', but it doesn't mention scenarios, exclusions, or contrast with tools like get_anim_sequence_info. No alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose whether setting keys overwrites existing keys, appends to a track, or requires the track to exist. For a mutating tool, this lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with an Args list that mirrors the schema but adds a tiny bit of detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids fluff. However, the Args section is largely redundant with the schema, so not every sentence earns its place fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a complex mutation with 5 required parameters and no annotations. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether keys are replaced or appended, how the JSON arrays are interpreted, or any other operational context. Given the available output schema, return values are covered, but the overall operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add format details (e.g., 'JSON array of [x,y,z] positions'), but the explanations are minimal and do not clarify semantics like time alignment or keyframe ordering. It provides marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Set bone track keys for an animation.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_bone_tracks and track-management tools like add_bone_track/remove_bone_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a bone track must already exist, how it relates to add_bone_track) or provide any exclusions. The usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the base operation. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., what happens if the track already exists), required asset state, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with a clear verb+object sentence. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but not verbose, and every line serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential action and parameter meanings but omits behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, asset type requirement) and relies on the output schema for return-value details. It is minimally viable but lacks critical mutation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds brief semantic hints beyond the schema titles: asset_path is an 'Unreal asset path' and track_name is a 'name for the new track'. This adds some meaning, but it's superficial and doesn't cover format, constraints, or uniqueness. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only minimally compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific verb 'Add' and the resource 'notify track to an animation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_notify (which adds a notify) and remove_notify_track (which removes a track). The purpose is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 add_notify or add_notify_state, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., asset must be an animation) or conditions. There is no usage context beyond the one-line action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies notifies but does not state whether the destination is overwritten, whether existing notifies are preserved, whether both paths must reference animations, or what the operation returns. Significant behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the one-line summary, then a clear Args list. No word is wasted, though it borders on under-specification. The structure is clean and effective for what it does say.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too sparse. It lacks behavioral details (overwriting, side effects), parameter semantics, and context on when to use it. Although an output schema may exist, it is not provided in the prompt, so the description must stand alone. The tool needs significantly more description to be safely invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows only parameter names and types (source_path, dest_path: string), with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds 'Source asset path' and 'Destination asset path', which confirms they are asset paths but provides little additional meaning beyond the names. It does not clarify the expected format or that they refer to animation assets specifically.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy notifies') and the resource ('from one animation to another'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that get, add, or remove notifies. It is a specific, non-tautological statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: use when you want to copy notifies between animations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., manual recreation) or any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states only 'Get core metadata' without disclosing what 'core metadata' includes, whether there are error conditions (e.g., invalid asset path), required permissions, or any return format nuances. The description adds little beyond the function's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args section. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description. However, the vague phrase 'core metadata' leaves ambiguity about what is retrieved, and the lack of usage guidelines is a clear gap. It is marginally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the parameter title 'Asset Path' with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'Args: asset_path: Unreal asset path' adds meaningful context by clarifying that the path is an Unreal asset path, which goes beyond the schema. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('core metadata for a BlendSpace'), which is more specific than the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_blendspace_samples or audit_blendspace, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 get_blendspace_samples, audit_blendspace, or other get_* sibling tools. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without disclosing return format, error behavior, or whether it is a pure read operation. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with no fluff. The Args block is redundant with the schema but does not harm. It is concise but lacks substance, so not a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description is still too thin. It does not clarify the nature of 'sample points' or differentiate from get_blendspace_info, leaving the agent to infer crucial usage context from the tool name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds 'Unreal asset path' for the parameter, which does little beyond the parameter name 'asset_path'. It adds minimal semantic value and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all sample points in a BlendSpace' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blendspace_info (which likely returns general info) and add_blendspace_sample/edit_blendspace_sample (which modify sample points).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving sample points but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer other getters like get_blendspace_info or audit_blendspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries sole responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get slot tracks,' implying a safe read operation, but does not mention side effects, return format, error handling, or any other behavioral nuances. The description adds no information beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear header line followed by a single argument explanation. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description might be sufficient in isolation, but it lacks any explanation of what 'slot tracks' are or how they relate to montage sections. Given the broader montage domain and existing sibling tools, users (or agents) would need more context to fully understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Unreal asset path' to the asset_path parameter, providing domain context that the bare type 'string' lacks. However, it does not explain format, examples, or any constraints, so the compensation is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get slot tracks for a montage.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_montage_info and get_montage_sections, which target different aspects of a montage. Despite its brevity, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It neither explains typical use cases nor mentions exclusions or related tools. With many sibling get_* tools, the absence of any contextual hint leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Delete a section from a montage.' It doesn't mention permanence, impact on other sections' indices, restrictions (e.g., cannot delete last section), or required permissions. No contradiction exists, but there is minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the action stated upfront and parameter details in a clean block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits edge cases like deleting the only section or index out-of-bounds behavior, and lacks any consequence information, making it slightly incomplete for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides minimal meanings for both parameters: 'asset_path: Unreal asset path' and 'section_index: Index of the section to delete.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is the only explanation, but it remains shallow (e.g., no format or 0-based vs 1-based indexing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a section from a montage'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_montage_section or set_section_next.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when a section should be removed rather than edited with set_section_time or set_section_next. There is no mention of constraints or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's name and arguments, adding no information about return format, whether transitions include conditions/actions, whether any side effects are possible, or any limitations. As a getter, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The parameter block is clearly formatted and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the return values are presumably documented there, so the description does not need to explain them. But the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'transitions' includes) and usage guidance, making it only minimally complete for a moderate-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only types and titles with 0% coverage in the description, so the parameter descriptions (asset_path: Unreal asset path, machine_name: State machine name) add necessary context beyond the schema. However, they are minimal and could elaborate on expected formats or paths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets detailed transitions in an ABP state machine, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transitions in an ABP state machine'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_abp_nodes or get_abp_state_machines.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies a read operation for transitions, the description does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as removal but does not mention irreversibility, asset save behavior, permissions required, or the effect of omitting both optional filters (though 'or all' hints at it). This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, with a single sentence for the action and a structured Args list. Every sentence is informative, and the key purpose is front-loaded with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (3 params, one required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks important safety context for a destructive tool (e.g., confirmation, irreversibility) and doesn't explain the interaction between filters, leaving the description minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section provides needed meaning. It explains 'marker_name' filters by name and 'track_name' filters by track, but does not clarify behavior when both are provided, or the exact semantics of 'all'. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('sync markers'), and distinguishes behavior by name, track, or all. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_sync_markers or add_sync_marker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sync_markers or add_sync_marker. The usage is implied from the name and description, but no context or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious mutation ('Set') without mentioning side effects, validation, asset-save requirements, or error handling. This does not provide meaningful transparency beyond the operation itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, and followed by a structured Args list. Every line earns its place with no fluff, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three basic parameters, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings adequately. However, it omits usage context, behavioral details, and any mention of return values or error conditions, leaving gaps that are not filled by the existing output schema or annotations. It is minimally viable but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section adds brief meaning beyond schema titles: it clarifies asset_path as 'Unreal asset path', notify_index as 'Index of the notify state', and new_duration as 'New duration in seconds'. This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it lacks constraints like allowed ranges or path formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Set the duration of a notify state,' clearly identifying the action (set) and the resource (duration of a notify state). This specific verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like set_notify_time or add_notify, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description solely states what it does without any contextual 'when' or 'when not' information, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether the asset is modified in place), error conditions (e.g., if a curve with the same name already exists), or any destructive implications. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is well-structured and each line provides necessary detail without redundancy. It is concise but not overly terse, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple add operation, the description gives the essential purpose and parameters. However, it omits behavioral context such as whether the curve is added to an existing animation asset, any constraints (e.g., unique naming), or what happens on failure. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value details, but the mutation aspect is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining each parameter: asset_path is an Unreal asset path, curve_name is the name for the new curve, and curve_type explicitly lists allowed values ('float', 'vector', or 'transform'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a curve to an animation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_curve_keys, which add keys to an existing curve, by focusing on creating the curve itself. The argument details further clarify the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_curve_keys or remove_curve. There are no preconditions (e.g., animation must exist) or scenarios where it should not be used. The description only states the action, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not elaborate on permissions, failure modes, return format, or any side effects. The lack of any additional behavioral context leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence plus an argument line, with no fluff. It is front-loaded and each piece of text is necessary. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description provides a minimum viable explanation. However, it does not explain what 'asset overrides' are, when to use this tool, or how the output is structured beyond what the output schema might provide. This is adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (asset_path) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'Unreal asset path', which is merely restating the parameter name and type. It does not clarify how the path should be formatted or what constitutes a valid input, so it adds marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get parent node asset overrides in an AnimBlueprint.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('parent node asset overrides'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_abp_info or get_abp_graphs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs asset overrides for parent nodes in an AnimBlueprint, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also lacks any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no warnings about the destructive nature of removing metadata, nor any side effects or permission requirements. It simply restates the action without behavioral context, leaving the agent unaware of the irreversibility or the impact of removing all metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential parameter documentation. No unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's relative simplicity, the description covers the basics but lacks critical context about consequences of removal, output, or when to prefer other tools. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing usage and behavior guidance, especially for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds brief explanations for both parameters, clarifying that 'meta_data_class' can be omitted to remove all metadata, which is not fully specified in the schema. However, it lacks detailed semantics about valid classes and the meaning of 'metadata' in the Unreal context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove metadata from an animation asset' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameter 'meta_data_class' clarifies scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'add_meta_data' by its opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its action verb but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'add_meta_data' or mention prerequisites or exclusions. It is clear that this tool is for removal, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives the basic operation and parameter names without detailing matching behavior (exact/partial), case sensitivity, search scope, or side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single purpose sentence and a minimal Args list. No filler or redundant information, and the key statement is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but lacks annotations and has only a minimal description. It fails to mention search semantics, output details (though output schema exists), or folder path conventions. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section adds value by explaining slot_name and folder. However, explanations are terse, especially 'Restrict search to folder' which lacks format or scope details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Find montages using a specific slot', which is a specific verb+resource+search criterion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_montage_slots (which queries slots of a montage) and other search_by_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for locating montages by slot but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_by_notify or search_by_curve. No when-not guidance or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior, prerequisites, or side effects. The verb 'get' implies safety, but that is not sufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first line and an Args section for the parameter. Every line adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with an existing output schema, the description is adequate but lacks usage guidance and differentiation from sibling tools. It does not mention potential errors or setup requirements, leaving some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for asset_path (0% coverage), and the description adds a minimal note: 'Unreal asset path.' This clarifies the basic meaning of the parameter, but lacks details like formatting requirements or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed section list for a montage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_montage_slots or get_montage_info by focusing on sections specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a section list is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings. It is a clear statement of purpose but lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'include_children' behavior but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires permissions, or affects the asset permanently. For a destructive mutation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a minimal argument list. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return details need not be explained. However, lack of usage guidance and behavioral caveats leaves the description merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds concise explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'include_children: Also remove child bone tracks') beyond the bare schema titles, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a bone track from an animation' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_bone_track and set_bone_track_keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the operation without context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it is minimal. It states the removal action but does not clarify whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if no notifies match, how both notify_name and track_name interact (e.g., AND vs OR), or any permission or side-effect considerations. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clean, structured argument list. Every line adds value without repetition or extraneous detail, which is ideal for quick agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool, the description covers the basic operation and parameters, but it lacks contextual depth. It does not explain edge cases, the relationship between the two optional filters, or the impact of the operation (e.g., irreversibility, no-op behavior). The output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, but the missing behavioral nuances reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining each parameter: asset_path is an Unreal asset path, notify_name removes notifies with that name, and track_name removes all notifies on that track. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and title information, though it could be richer about formats and precedence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a clear imperative verb and resource: 'Remove notifies by name or track.' This immediately states the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_notify_track (removes a track) and get_anim_notifies (read-only). The parameter list reinforces the purpose by naming the two filtering criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related operations like remove_notify_track or copy_notifies, nor does it state conditions for using notify_name vs track_name or warn about ambiguous cases. The usage is only implied from the name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior if the track does not exist. For a destructive operation, this is a notable transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single purpose statement followed by a neatly formatted argument list. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, making it instantly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core operation and the two parameters, and since an output schema exists, the lack of return value info is acceptable. However, it omits usage context, behavioral consequences, and any disambiguation from siblings. For a simple destructive tool, it is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by defining both parameters: 'asset_path: Unreal asset path' and 'track_name: Track to remove'. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw property names, though it is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a notify track' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like remove_notifies (which removes notify events) and remove_bone_track (bone tracks). This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the operation without contextual cues that could help an agent decide between this and similar removal tools like remove_notifies or remove_bone_track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only safety or side effects. It merely states the operation without noting that it is a non-mutating operation or any potential consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter with two parameters, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers the essential behavior, though it omits error handling or edge-case guidance, which is acceptable for this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to both parameters: asset_path is defined as 'Unreal asset path' and graph_name as 'Graph name to inspect (empty for first graph)'. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('blend nodes in an AnimBlueprint graph'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_abp_nodes or get_abp_graphs, providing a precise purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-only action ('Enumerate') but does not mention output format, error handling, or any prerequisites (e.g., path validity). It adds no behavioral traits beyond what is already inferable from the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus an args section. Every sentence serves a purpose—verb + resource, then parameter semantics. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple enumeration tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials. It lacks sibling differentiation and usage context, but the tool's relative simplicity and output schema reduce the need for extensive detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains 'node_class' as a filter with a concrete example ('AnimGraphNode_BlendListByBool') and defines 'asset_path' as an Unreal asset path. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Enumerate' with a precise resource 'anim graph nodes in an AnimBlueprint', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_abp_blend_nodes (which targets only blend nodes) and get_abp_graphs (which lists graphs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this enumerates all nodes in an anim graph, nor does it point to sibling tools for filtered scenarios. The context of many sibling tools makes this ambiguity costly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get bone transforms' and provides parameter descriptions. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but safety profile and operational details are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a one-line purpose followed by an args list. Each sentence earns its place, and the args list directly maps to the schema without unnecessary fluff. No irrelevant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explicit read-only transparency and any guidance on time validity or bone name constraints. Still, for a straightforward getter, it covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does provide brief clarifications: 'Time in seconds' adds units, 'List of bone names to query' elaborates on the array type, and 'Unreal asset path' is minimally redundant with the parameter name. This is some added value, but the explanations are shallow and do not cover edge cases or formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets bone transforms at a specific time, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bone transforms'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_bone_tracks or get_skeletal_mesh_info by the temporal aspect, even without naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when bone transforms at a specific time are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be preferable. It doesn't mention alternatives like get_bone_tracks for accessing tracks over time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the asset, whether asset existence is checked, or any error conditions. It provides minimal but acceptable transparency for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a clear statement of purpose and a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature (one parameter, read-only action), and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could benefit from mentioning that it works with Unreal asset paths, but that is already implied by the parameter description. It covers what the tool does adequately for a basic getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'asset_path' as a string with no additional description. The description adds 'Unreal asset path', clarifying the expected format. However, this is still minimal and does not elaborate on path syntax or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves bone hierarchy and metadata for a Skeleton. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'Skeleton' distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on other asset types like meshes, animations, and montages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not compare against sibling tools such as get_skeletal_mesh_info or get_anim_sequence_info, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is from the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Set' without explaining that this is a mutating operation on the asset, whether it overwrites existing data, or any side effects or permissions required. The implicit mutation is not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with a clear action statement followed by a structured Args list. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. It lacks behavioral caveats and usage context, but for a straightforward setter, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing an Args section explaining each parameter: 'asset_path: Unreal asset path', 'section_name: Section name', 'new_time: New start time in seconds'. This adds units and format context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the start time of a montage section' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_section_next and add_montage_section, which target different aspects of montage sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar goals (e.g., set_section_next). The usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purposeful operation ('Find animations') without mentioning read-only nature, output format, permissions, or side effects. Minimal additional context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke the tool. It covers the purpose and parameters, though it lacks explicit edge-case handling or alternative guidance. Adequate for the task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section provides concise explanations for all three parameters, which is essential because the schema lacks property descriptions (0% coverage). Descriptions clarify the role of notify_name, notify_class, and folder, though they are minimal and could be more specific (e.g., folder path syntax).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'animations', with a specific search criterion 'specific notify'. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_by_curve and search_by_slot by focusing on notifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this when you need to locate animations by notify name/class or restrict to a folder. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Delete' without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the sample index is invalid. The burden of behavioral disclosure is not met.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear structured Args list. Every line is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation and parameters adequately. However, it omits any mention of side effects, validation, or error conditions, though the output schema may provide return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: asset_path is the BlendSpace asset path and sample_index is the index of the sample to delete. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a sample from a BlendSpace' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the two parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_blendspace_sample and edit_blendspace_sample.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and the action, but there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, such as checking the index exists or using edit_blendspace_sample for modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the action (setting trigger time) but does not disclose whether the asset is permanently modified, whether the notify must already exist, or any error conditions. It transparently describes the core mutation but omits broader behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two clear sentences plus a structured argument list. Every sentence and line is necessary and directly valuable, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter with three required parameters and an existing output schema. The description covers the action and all parameter semantics. It could be enhanced with a note about modifying the asset, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are explained in the Args section with concrete meaning: asset_path as 'Unreal asset path', notify_index as 'Index of the notify', and new_time as 'New trigger time in seconds' (provides units). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, which only supply titles like 'New Time'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the trigger time of a specific notify' with a specific verb and resource, and the inclusion of asset_path, notify_index, and new_time makes it clear this affects a single notify in an asset. It differentiates from siblings like set_notify_duration and remove_notifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus setting duration or adding notifies. It implies usage only through its name and description, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. This is adequate but uninformative for selection among sibling set_* and notify tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context by clarifying that anim_path empty keeps the current animation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation modifies the asset in place, potential side effects, or permission requirements. Mild transparency but incomplete for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, contains no fluff, and every sentence/line adds essential information. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the required parameters and key behavior (editing position and/or animation). It is sufficiently complete for a simple edit tool, though it could mention error conditions like invalid asset_path or sample_index, but that is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing every parameter with a concise explanation: asset_path as the BlendSpace asset path, sample_index as the index to edit, x/y as new axis values, and anim_path as the new animation path with empty meaning keep current. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks details like units or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Edit a BlendSpace sample position and/or animation,' which clearly identifies the verb (edit) and resource (BlendSpace sample). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_blendspace_sample and delete_blendspace_sample, which perform different operations on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates this tool is for modifying an existing sample at a given index, contrasting with add/delete siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the full set of return values and the asset_path format, which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tight and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of returns, and a parameter explanation. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return fields. It lacks explicit error-handling details or contrast with sibling tools, but those are not essential here, so it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only says 'string' for asset_path, so the description adds significant value by explaining it as an 'Unreal asset path' and providing a concrete example ('/Game/Animations/AS_Run'). This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent format the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'AnimSequence' and enumerates exactly what metadata is returned (length, frame count, rate scale, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters that target narrower aspects like sync markers, curves, or bone tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when one needs core metadata for an AnimSequence, listing the fields returned. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over more specific getters (e.g., get_bone_tracks, get_anim_curves) and provides no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavior: omitting `bone_names` removes all virtual bones. However, it does not mention persistence, permissions, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the agent is left partially informed about the destructive nature of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a one-sentence summary and a compact Args section. Every line adds value, and there is no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool, the description covers the main facets: purpose, parameter semantics, and a caveat about 'all'. It relies on the output schema for return values and does not address edge cases, but it is largely complete for this scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics to both parameters, clarifying that `asset_path` is an Unreal asset path and `bone_names` are specific bones, with 'omit for all' explaining the default behavior. This is especially valuable given 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove virtual bones') and the target resource ('a skeleton'). It distinguishes this from sibling remove tools by specifying the bone category, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for removing virtual bones, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Find' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the parameter 'folder' hints at search scoping, but it does not disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, what happens when no matches are found, or other behavioral details. The output schema may cover return format, but behavioral traits beyond that are not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: one clear summary sentence followed by a structured parameter list. Every word earns its place, and the format makes it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose and arguments.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics adequately. It is reasonably complete, though it could add a note about when to use this tool versus other search tools (e.g., search_by_notify), and might mention default behavior when curve_type is null. Overall, it is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter's purpose and provides concrete type examples for curve_type ('float', 'vector', 'transform'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema titles, though 'folder' could be more precise about its path format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Find animations containing a specific curve,' which combines a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('animations'), and search target ('curve'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_by_notify and search_by_slot, which search by different entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by defining the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_animations or search_by_notify. The parameter list provides context but lacks direct comparative guidance or exclusion criteria, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that this modifies the asset permanently, potential side effects, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list with brief, clear definitions. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and parameter explanations are good, the description lacks guidance on preconditions, side effects, or interaction between 'enabled' and 'lock_type'. The output schema may cover return values, but overall the description is only minimally sufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, including an example for 'lock_type' (e.g., 'AnimFirstFrame', 'Zero', 'RefPose'). Since the input schema has no property descriptions, this fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Enable/disable root motion on an animation.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_rate_scale' or 'add_curve' by focusing on root motion manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage context: when you need to change root motion on an animation asset. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the clear purpose provides sufficient guidance for typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies read-only but is not explicitly stated. No side effects, error conditions, or performance implications are given beyond the scope of returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single core sentence plus a parameter example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter getter with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. The only missing elements are behaviors on invalid assets or empty results, but otherwise it covers purpose, scope, and input adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the schema having no description, the tool description provides an inline Args section with a clear explanation and example for asset_path. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and leaves no ambiguity about the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: getting all state machines from an AnimBlueprint, including states and transitions. This specific verb+resource+POV distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_abp_graphs and get_abp_state_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need all state machines and their states/transitions) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions. For a getter, this is adequate but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds the filter behavior. It doesn't disclose error handling or side effects, but the output schema covers return structure, which mitigates the gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place without redundant elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly note that it only returns curves and nothing else, but the purpose and parameters are adequately covered for a getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: asset_path as 'Unreal asset path' and curve_type with allowed values 'float', 'vector', or 'transform'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all curves on an animation sequence' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on curves, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_ tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need curves, and the curve_type filter adds context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get' (implying read-only) and the asset type restriction, but does not mention prerequisites like whether the asset must be loaded, potential error cases, or whether 'notifies' includes notify states. This is a notable transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, and the Args block provides structured parameter detail without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists so return values are documented. The description covers the parameter and the action adequately. It could be more complete by clarifying the exact scope of 'notifies' (e.g., whether notify states are included), but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for asset_path (schema coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The Args section fully explains that asset_path is an Unreal asset path to an AnimSequence or AnimMontage, giving complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'notifies' on an animation asset, and further restricts the asset type to AnimSequence or AnimMontage in the Args. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_anim_curves or get_sync_markers which target different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context by stating it retrieves notifies and imposes a usage constraint by requiring the asset_path to be an AnimSequence or AnimMontage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other asset types or data kinds, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the dual read behavior (list vs. detailed keys) and the role of bone_name, but it does not explain what 'detailed keys' consist of, nor any error conditions or limitations. As a getter, it implies a read-only operation, but a bit more context (e.g., 'keys' meaning animation curve key times) would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences plus a short args list. It front-loads the purpose and provides parameter semantics in a structured way without unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with two modes and an output schema present. The description covers the key usage decision (omit vs. provide bone_name) and identifies the resource type (bone tracks). It does not detail the return format, but the existence of an output schema mitigates that need. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains asset_path as 'Unreal asset path' (minimal, but somewhat redundant) and bone_name with crucial semantics: 'Specific bone to inspect (omit for track list).' This adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying how the parameter changes the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Get bone track names, or detailed keys for a specific bone.' This distinguishes two modes (listing vs. inspecting a specific bone) and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_skeleton_info or get_bone_pose_at_time by focusing specifically on bone tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The args description provides clear usage guidance: 'omit for track list' tells the agent when to omit bone_name, implying when to use each mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for bone track queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the bare schema: query is case-insensitive, anim_type has allowed enum values, folder is an Unreal path with an example. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, recursive search behavior, or whether all filters are combined. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and only partially fulfills it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one purpose sentence followed by a compact, well-organized Args block. Every line carries meaningful parameter information with no filler or redundancy. The structure is scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and all parameter semantics sufficiently. It does not explicitly state whether filters can be combined or what happens when no filters are given, but these are minor gaps for a search operation. Overall, the description is complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It fully does so: query explains case-insensitive name matching; anim_type lists the five valid types; folder provides an Unreal path example; skeleton explains the filter by skeleton path. This gives the agent complete understanding of each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for animation assets by name, type, folder, or skeleton.' It specifies the resource (animation assets) and the action (search) with explicit filter dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling getters/modifiers and more specialized search tools like search_by_notify, search_by_curve, and search_by_slot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context by listing the four search dimensions (name, type, folder, skeleton), making it obvious when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as the more specialized search tools among its siblings, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tumourlove/DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tumourlove/DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tumourlove/DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tumourlove/DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tumourlove/DEPRECATED-unreal-animation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server