suggest_animation_frames

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 discloses the return content and notes that it directly uses Unity AnimationClip, which is a useful implementation detail. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the asset/animation is invalid, or any side effects. The word 'returns' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence in Korean. It front-loads the main purpose, includes meaningful specifics (sprite sheet, animation examples, output fields, Unity AnimationClip), and contains no fluff or redundant information.

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 is relatively simple, but the description lacks parameter explanations (especially asset_id) and does not mention error cases or prerequisites. The output schema may cover return values, but the description should still provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'animation' refers to walk/idle/etc. and mentions output fields, but it does not explain the 'asset_id' parameter at all. There is no guidance on how to identify the sprite sheet or the exact format of the animation string beyond examples. This leaves a significant gap for parameter understanding.

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: it returns frame_indices and fps_hint for a sprite sheet's animation (walk/idle/etc.). The verb '반환한다' (returns) and the specific resource '스프라이트 시트의 애니메이션' distinguish it from sibling tools like suggest_packs or find_asset.

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 usage: to get animation frame data for a sprite sheet. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist, animation must be present). 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.