get_bone_tracks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.