audit_animation

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

The description mentions it returns JSON for AI consumption, implying a non-destructive audit. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise (two sentences plus format examples) and front-loaded with the purpose. The examples add necessary detail, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations for most parameters, usage context, and clear behavioral guarantees, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides format examples for overlap_pairs and layer_frame_ranges, explaining their expected structure. However, the other 8 parameters (end_frame, start_frame, max_overlaps, etc.) are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool audits animation frames for overlaps and out-of-range layer activity. The verb 'audit' and specific resources 'overlaps' and 'out-of-range' precisely define its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_scene or animation_sanitize.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparisons to related tools, leaving the agent without decision context.

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