production.animation_analyze_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive, idempotent operation that may write. The description adds schema-mode context and mentions configurable thresholds, but does not clarify what is written or what side effects occur. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short but poorly structured: it opens with schema jargon rather than a clear action, and the second and third clauses are fragments. It is concise, but front-loading and readability suffer.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a two-parameter analysis tool with nested options, it should say more about object_name and option structure. It covers the mode distinction but not enough input context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to a 'schema' field and configurable thresholds inside options, and never explains object_name or the options structure. This leaves both parameters largely undocumented.

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 resource (phase contacts) and the two supported schema modes, ground-plane M2 and explicit feet+surfaces M3. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic sibling analysis tools, but it does not name an alternative sibling and is jargon-heavy.

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?

It explains that the 'schema' field selects between M2 and M3 modes, which is a usage cue for the options object. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as animation_detect_contact_surface or animation_analyze_foot_phase, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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