audit_animation

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It states the tool audits overlaps and out-of-range activity and returns JSON, but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, performance implications, or error handling. Missing details on side effects and constraints.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, but the examples for parameter formats are integrated into the text without clear separation. Could benefit from structured bullets or clearer parameter explanations.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand all inputs and expected behavior. Missing parameter explanations, error scenarios, and prerequisites make it incomplete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides example formats for overlap_pairs and layer_frame_ranges, but other parameters like filename, start_frame, end_frame, layer_names, report_cels, report_bounds, max_overlaps, max_out_of_range are not described. Significant gaps remain.

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 the tool audits animation frames for overlaps and out-of-range layer activity. It specifies the core functionality and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on animation auditing rather than generic validation or manipulation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_scene or other audit tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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