anim_preview

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format that annotations do not: a contact sheet with one image per frame, which tells the agent what it will actually get back. It omits render cost and the 12-frame ceiling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the parenthetical clarifying the output format without waste. Nothing extraneous.

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 usefully explains the return shape, and all three parameters are optional so no invocation prerequisites are missing. However, max_size is unexplained anywhere, and nothing notes the frame-count cap or that rendering is limited to viewport imagery, leaving modest gaps.

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 a moderate 67%, and the schema itself documents both camera ("Camera to look through") and frames ("default 6 spread over the range") well. The description reinforces the frames-to-images mapping but says nothing about the max_size parameter, which is undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: it produces viewport images of several frames, delivered as a contact sheet with one image per frame. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like anim_sample or anim_key_pose. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"To watch the motion" implies the use case (visual review of an animation over several frames) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no sibling alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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