production.animation_analyze_effector_contact

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description's main added context is that results are estimates and that proximity alone is insufficient. It does not explain assumptions, limitations, or how dwell/contact/sliding/penetration are determined, and it does not address what the readOnlyHint=false annotation implies for a tool described as analysis.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it reads as a cryptic fragment and is too terse to be structurally helpful for an agent.

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 that this is an analysis tool with an output schema but undocumented input parameters, the description should clarify object_name and options usage and its relationship to sibling contact-analysis tools. None of that is provided.

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% and the description explains neither the required object_name parameter nor the options parameter. For a two-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the description must compensate but provides no parameter meaning at all.

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 produces estimates for effector dwell/contact/sliding/penetration, which is a specific analysis resource. However, 'Generic' is undefined and it does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as animation_analyze_contacts or animation_detect_contact_surface. The phrase 'proximity alone is insufficient' hints at scope but remains implicit.

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 animation_analyze_contacts, animation_detect_contact_surface, animation_detect_foot_sliding, or animation_generate_effector_contact. The note that proximity alone is insufficient is a constraint or caution, not a routing rule.

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