test-animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Test animation functionality' suggests this might be a read-only or diagnostic operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this modifies compositions/layers, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected output might be. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured with zero redundancy.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'testing' means operationally, what happens during the test, what results to expect, or how this differs from application tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage where all parameters have clear descriptions and one has an enum with explicit values, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add any semantic context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Test animation functionality in After Effects', which is clear but vague. It specifies the domain (After Effects) and general action (test animation), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like setLayerExpression or setLayerKeyframe that appear to perform similar animation-related operations. The description lacks specificity about what 'test' means versus 'apply' or 'set' operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear related to animation (setLayerExpression, setLayerKeyframe, apply-effect, etc.), there's no indication of when 'test' is appropriate versus 'set' or 'apply'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for testing versus applying animations.

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