anim_get_controller

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output content (class name and key count) but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as missing controllers, invalid properties, or whether the fallback to selection affects results beyond the schema note.

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 compact bilingual statement with no filler. The Chinese and English versions each convey the same core information in two clauses, and the key output is stated up front.

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 read-only query tool, the description together with the schema covers what is needed: the property to inspect, the optional object list, and the returned information. Since there is no output schema, naming the two return values helps, but the exact return structure is still left unspecified.

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 both parameters. The description repeats the property examples but adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') and names the exact resource: the controller class name and key count currently used by a given property. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling anim_set_controller, which performs the opposite write operation.

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 read-only nature and 'currently used' phrasing imply this is a query/inspection tool, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or mentions the corresponding setter. No exclusion guidance is provided, though the intent is reasonably inferable.

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