audit-lottie-compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose valuable behavioral scope by enumerating what it flags (raster effects, risky expressions, unconverted text, vector footage, 3D switches, merge paths, adjustment layers). However, it does not state whether the audit is purely read-only, whether it fixes anything, or what form the report takes, leaving key behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the detail list. The enumeration is long but each item is a concrete detection category that earns its place; only minor trimming would be possible.

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 an audit tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what gets checked thoroughly. The one gap is the shape of the result (report structure, pass/fail), which an agent might want before calling, but the core purpose is sufficiently complete.

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%, so compName and compIndex are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the active-comp default already noted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (audit/scan) and resource (an After Effects composition for Lottie compatibility), and the enumerated detection categories make its scope unmistakable. An agent can easily distinguish it from siblings like compile-lottie-comp or export-lottie-json.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly a pre-flight compatibility check that logically precedes Lottie export/compile, but the description never says when to run it or how it relates to compile-lottie-comp or export-lottie-json. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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