fgui_preview_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: the preview will not be saved to FairyGUI assets, which signals non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as whether the tool requires an active document, whether it changes the current selection, or what the 'status' operation returns. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that front-loads the core functionality (play, pause, stop, seek, status) and then states the important caveat (preview not saved). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant detail. It is easy to parse and immediately actionable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to specify which animation to preview, what the required 'kind' values mean, or what the 'status' operation returns. Even with an output schema, the agent lacks critical context about prerequisites and parameter relationships, making correct invocation difficult.

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 for the 12 parameters. It only indirectly explains the 'operation' parameter by listing play/pause/stop/seek/status behaviors, but it fails to clarify parameters like kind, name, object_id, object_path, frame, delay, times, etc. Agents are left guessing how to target the correct animation or configure frame steps. This is insufficient for a tool with such a large parameter set.

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: play, pause, stop, seek, or query preview status for animations in the Editor. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (animation preview), and its purpose is distinct from any sibling tool (no other preview tool exists). The additional note that previews are not saved to FairyGUI assets further clarifies its non-persistent nature.

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 gives a clear context: this tool is for interacting with animation previews in the Editor, which implies when to use it (e.g., when testing transitions or movieclips). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'in Editor' plus 'not saved' framing provides enough guidance to differentiate it from asset-editing tools. A small deduction because it doesn't state when not to use it (e.g., when persistent changes are desired).

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