reverse_engineer_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the multi-pass process, frame extraction, region cropping, and detailed output (timing, easing, stagger). However, it does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive nature, though implied by the actions described.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, process overview, usage hint. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (multi-pass, optional region) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, process, and output hints. It could mention file size limits or expected video length, but is complete enough for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that providing a 'region' skips Pass 1 and that 'element_description' describes the region content. This exceeds the schema's brief descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('reverse-engineer', 'extract', 'find', 'crop', 'deep-dive') and clearly names the resource ('every animation in a video'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_layout, reverse_engineer_component) by focusing solely on animations with multi-pass analysis.

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 provides clear context on when to use the optional region parameter (skip Pass 1 for a single element), but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over sibling tools. There is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria for alternative tools.

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