read_animated_sprite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Read' without disclosing behavior like whether it reads the active scene, what happens if the node doesn't exist, or whether it's non-destructive. This is a minimal disclosure gap.

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 one short sentence with no waste. It is concise, though it could be more informative without adding bulk, so it doesn't fully earn its place in terms of content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, how the parameters interact, or what 'settings' includes, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably among many similar read tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema's descriptions ('Specific node name', 'Filter to scene') are clear, so no compensation is needed.

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 reads AnimatedSprite settings with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other read_* siblings by targeting AnimatedSprite specifically, though it doesn't enumerate which settings are included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when it's appropriate. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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