production.animation_analyze_foot_phase

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds only that the method uses geometric heuristics and physical metrics, without explaining what gets read or written, what surfaces are considered 'explicit static,' or what the output represents despite an output schema existing.

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 concise fragment with no wasted words, but its structure is cryptic and under-specified for a complex analysis tool. It front-loads the phases concept but leaves the reader to infer the action being performed.

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 two undocumented parameters, zero schema description coverage, and a complex animation-analysis purpose, the description is far too sparse. Even though an output schema exists, the agent lacks enough context to know what inputs mean or when this analysis is appropriate.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it does not explain object_name or the options object. The phrase 'explicit static surfaces' faintly hints that options may involve surface definitions, but this is not actionable for the agent.

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 identifies the analysis target (heel/sole/toe phases against explicit static surfaces) but uses a noun-phrase fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It partially distinguishes the tool from general contact analysis by mentioning static surfaces, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like animation_analyze_contacts or animation_detect_contact_surface.

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 animation_analyze_contacts, animation_analyze_effector_contact, or animation_detect_foot_sliding. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this analysis.

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