production.animation_detect_foot_sliding

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely valuable caveat — that thresholds are configurable rather than universal quality standards — which warns the agent not to treat results as pass/fail. It does not clarify what the tool produces or whether a report is persisted, and 'measure' reads lighter than the readOnlyHint=false annotation suggests.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the measurement claim front-loaded and the interpretive caveat second. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

Ten parameters with no descriptions, no exclusions, and no guidance on scoping (frame range, bone subset) make this inadequate; an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the agent still lacks the input semantics and sibling routing needed to invoke it correctly.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it never mentions armature (the only required parameter), frame_start/frame_end, bones, or step. The phrase 'thresholds are configurable' gestures at sliding_tolerance_m, contact_height_m and contact_speed_m_s without naming or defining any of them.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Measure potential planted-foot drift in meters' tells the agent exactly what quantity is produced. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as animation_fix_foot_sliding, animation_analyze_contacts, or animation_analyze_foot_phase, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisite state is needed (an evaluated armature/action, a selected frame range), or which alternative to pick — notably animation_fix_foot_sliding for remediation or animation_analyze_contacts for contact detection. 'Potential' hints at heuristic results but is not framed as usage guidance.

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