get_keyframes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but only adds that times are in sequence seconds. It does not state that the call is read-only, what is returned for properties with no keyframes, or any error/permission behavior for invalid effect or property references.

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?

A single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is so terse that the front-loaded content is nearly all that exists. Efficient in size yet under-informative rather than genuinely well-structured.

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?

A 5-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema gets only one sentence. An agent still lacks the return shape (keyframe count, interpolation values, timing units beyond seconds), failure modes, and relationship to sibling keyframe 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 description coverage is 100%, so the effect/property/track/clip parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description's parenthetical clarifies output time units rather than adding parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

Names a specific resource ('keyframes of a property') and the retrieval verb is clear from the name/description pair. It is distinguishable from add_keyframe/remove_keyframe/clear_keyframes, though it never explicitly says it is read-only retrieval.

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 indication of when to call this versus siblings like get_effect_property or get_clip_effects, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the effect/property must already have keyframes). Usage is only implied by the name.

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