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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape (animated_svg plus unchanged reduced_motion_svg), the required animation fields, allowed property types, and optional timing parameters. It does not discuss error behavior, but the main behavioral surface is transparent.

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 and information-dense: one sentence states purpose, one lists required and optional animation keys, one gives value examples, and one states the response fields. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 the minimal input schema, the description is unusually complete: an agent knows how to construct the animations array and what to expect in the response. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit value formatting for rotate and scale, but the stated examples and property list are sufficient for a competent call.

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% and the animations array items are completely open objects (additionalProperties: true). The description compensates by defining exactly what each animation needs: target_id, property, values, plus optional duration_ms, begin_ms, repeat_count, and key_times. It also gives concrete value examples for translate, opacity, and path, without which the tool would be nearly uninvokable.

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: 'Add standards-based SMIL keyframes to a custom SVG.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling glaxnimate_inspect_svg, which is for inspection rather than 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 tool is clearly scoped to modifying/annotating an SVG with SMIL keyframes. It does not explicitly say 'use inspect_svg when you only need to inspect,' but the sibling name and the action verb make the divide obvious enough that an agent can choose correctly.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It describes a read-only inspection and the outcome, but does not explicitly state that the SVG is not modified, nor does it mention edge cases like missing IDs or invalid SVG input.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds one actionable pre-call instruction. Every sentence contributes value 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?

For a simple one-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what input it expects conceptually, and how to prepare artwork for useful results. It does not need to detail return values because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'svg' parameter. It only says 'Inspect an SVG' and references generated artwork, but does not clarify expected SVG format, source, or how the parameter should be provided.

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 a specific action ('Inspect an SVG') and a concrete result ('list the element IDs that can receive animation keyframes'). This distinguishes it from the sibling glaxnimate_animate_svg, which presumably performs animations rather than inspecting them.

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 explicit pre-call guidance: assign stable semantic IDs before invoking the tool. It implies the tool is used to confirm available animation targets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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