getKeyframeInfo

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 indicates a read operation by saying 'Get detailed information', but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. The detailed list of returned fields adds some value but does not cover all behavioral aspects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key returned data. It is appropriately sized and structured for an API tool description, with no unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It lists some returned fields (values, times, interpolation, speed/influence curves) which is helpful, but it does not cover all potential return data such as whether the keyframes are for multiple dimensions or contain additional metadata. Additionally, behavioral aspects like whether it requires a selected composition or layer are not mentioned. For a read tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it is minimally complete but has gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only specifies what information is returned, not how parameters affect the output. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves detailed information on keyframes for a property, including specific data points like values, times, interpolation, and speed/influence curves. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'setLayerKeyframe' or 'getLayerInfo' by focusing specifically on keyframe details.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get keyframe info) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools suggests it is for reading keyframe data, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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