motion_get_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Inspect' and details the return values, including the distinction between leaf and group parameters. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify', but the language strongly implies a non-mutating operation and explains what to expect.

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 concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines the action and gives examples, the second lists the return info. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return types, and it does explain the semantic content of the output. However, the parameter ambiguity is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool with no schema documentation. The description is complete in purpose but incomplete in parameter guidance, making it only minimally complete overall.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides path format examples ('Object/Text' or 'Style/Face/Color/Red') and explains the concept of a slash-separated path, but it fails to map these to the schema's three parameters, especially the confusing presence of both 'path' and 'parameter_path'. The examples could apply to either, leaving the agent uncertain about which parameter to fill.

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: 'Inspect a parameter by slash-separated name path from a scenenode' and specifies the exact information returned (value/default, keyframed status, child parameter names). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_set_parameter_value, which modifies parameters.

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 context: use when you need to inspect a parameter's current state ('Returns its current value/default, whether it's keyframed, and child parameter names'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only 'Inspect' wording naturally contrasts with set/modify siblings.

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