Random dance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutating/local nature is covered. The description adds credibly useful context ('record it', 'return the live-switch snippet') about side effects and output, but does not say what 'record' persists or where. Adds value beyond annotations without fully covering side-effect behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the action, an optional filter, the side effect, and the return value with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 compensates by naming the return value ('live-switch snippet'). For a one-param, annotation-covered tool this is close to complete, though the persistence semantics of 'record' remain unstated.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as an optional name/file filter. The description's '(optional name filter)' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.

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+resource chain: pick a random dance, record it, and return a live-switch snippet. This distinguishes it from reanim_random_moveset at the resource level and from reanim_switch_dance at the action level. It stops short of differentiating from reanim_surprise_me or reanim_create_dance.

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?

The parenthetical '(optional name filter)' implies when the filter applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over reanim_surprise_me, reanim_random_moveset, or reanim_switch_dance. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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