inspect_svg_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the analytical outputs (animation detection, duration, viewBox) and implies a non-mutating read, but says nothing about error behavior on malformed SVG, side effects, or how the two input modes differ beyond the schema's own note. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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, no waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the usage directive. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct extracted artifact.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does by listing animations, duration, and viewBox dimensions. Minor gap: it does not describe the shape of the result or what happens when no animation is detected, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (svgContent, svgFilePath) are already fully documented in the schema, including the hosted-sandbox restriction. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) plus the resource (SVG file or raw SVG content) and enumerates the concrete outputs: CSS keyframe animations, duration estimate, viewBox dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling render_svg_to_video, which produces video rather than analysis.

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?

"Call this tool first before rendering" gives explicit ordering guidance relative to the render step, which effectively routes the agent away from render_svg_to_video until inspection is done. It stops short of naming the sibling or stating exclusions (e.g. what to do if no animation is found).

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