validate_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'validates' and 'returns JSON', but does not indicate if it is read-only (likely safe), performance implications, or whether it modifies state. No mention of error cases or limitations.

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 short (two sentences) with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating purpose and return value, but lacks important details, making it less efficient for an AI agent.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return format (JSON with missing layers and missing cels) but not its structure. It fails to cover the parameters or provide enough context for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter (filename, required_layers, start_frame, end_frame). The user cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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's function: validate presence of layers and cels across a frame range and return missing items. The verb 'validate' and the resource 'layers and cels' are specific. It partially distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_animation' but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ensure_layers_present', 'audit_animation'). No prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. The usage scenario is implied but not explicitly stated.

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