read_animation_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention return format, side effects, or edge cases (e.g., missing AnimationTree node). The phrase 'with state machine' hints at scope but adds little behavioral detail.

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 short sentence, making it very concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it verges on under-specification, which costs a point compared to a more informative but still concise description.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output will look like (and there is no output schema), nor does it mention any failure conditions or special requirements like whether the scene file must exist or be currently loaded. Given the minimalism, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter (scene_path) fully with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any further parameter meaning beyond suggesting the scene should contain an AnimationTree with a state machine, which is redundant with the schema's 'containing an AnimationTree node' note.

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 an AnimationTree node, specifically one with a state machine, which distinguishes it from related tools like read_animation or read_animated_sprite. However, it doesn't explicitly note when to choose this over other read tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_animation or read_scene. It also lacks prerequisites like whether the scene needs to be open or if the AnimationTree node must be the root. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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