check_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what it detects but not that it is read-only/non-destructive, what result it produces (a list of hitches? a pass/fail?), or how many objects it will scan. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the finding, with zero filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter, optional-arg check tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It omits the default scope when 'objects' is null and gives no hint of the result shape, which a no-output-schema tool should ideally supply.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'objects' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about what happens when 'objects' is omitted (presumably all objects) or how names are matched.

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 (Find) and a specific target (sudden speed changes and loop seams / hitches in animation curves), even defining the jargon 'hitches'. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic inspection tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'animate' or 'animate_preset' with which it shares a domain.

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 description never says when to run this check, in what workflow stage (e.g., after animate/animate_preset, before export), or what alternatives exist. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'animation curves', so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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