get_animation_summary

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.