generate-lottie-interactivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the tool writes a file, mutates the composition, strips or consumes existing markers, requires specific marker naming conventions, or fails when no markers exist. For a generation/compilation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant unknowns.

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 front-loaded sentence with the primary action (extract markers) stated first and the parenthetical event list kept compact. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration is dense and could be trimmed without losing selection value.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must carry extra weight, and it partially does by naming the produced artifact and its event types. It still omits where the spec is emitted/returned and what happens on failure or empty marker sets, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a generation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so compName, compIndex, animationId, and stateMachineId are already documented, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., marker naming conventions or how marker data maps to the state machine), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names two specific actions (extract After Effects timeline markers; compile a dotLottie Interactivity Specification) and enumerates the event types the spec covers. An agent can tell this is a marker-to-state-machine compiler, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like add-lottie-state-markers or compile-lottie-comp.

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 states what happens but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must markers already exist?), and no routing to or away from the several similarly-named lottie siblings (add-lottie-state-markers, audit-lottie-compliance, compile-lottie-comp). The agent must infer the scenario entirely.

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