search_animations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.