create_stick_figure_runner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the scene is animated and that the character is composed of multiple independently animated shapes. However, it does not describe output format, how animation timing works, or side effects—though creation tools are generally low-risk.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear bullet-style list for the included components. The final sentence adds meaningful detail about independent animation without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately communicates what the tool produces, especially given four optional parameters with defaults. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around return format, animation timing, and parameter behavior, so an agent has to make reasonable assumptions.

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, and the description does not mention width, height, duration, or background. The parameter names and defaults provide some surface-level meaning, but the description adds no semantic detail about units, constraints, or how these parameters affect the scene.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete animated stick-figure running scene.' It then enumerates the exact components (head, body, arms, legs, ground, shadow), distinguishing this tool from the many generic animation siblings like create_animated_scene and create_custom_animation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a complete animated stick-figure running scene is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the output is specific enough that an agent can infer the right choice.

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