eval_manim

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 return structure (node names, buildErrors[]) and error payload shape, but does not state whether the parse is side-effect-free (read-only), whether it runs the builder or just statically validates, or how runtime failures are triggered during a 'parse' operation.

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, each adding information about the return artifact; no filler. Slightly dense but well front-loaded with the action first and the diagnostics detail after.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (node names and structured errors), which is the key missing piece. It could be improved by stating side-effect behavior, but it is nearly complete for the task complexity.

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 100% and the single parameter 'source' is documented in the schema. The description implies source is .manim code but adds no format, size, or encoding details beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Parse and validate a .manim source snippet'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_errors or inspect_programmable. An agent knows immediately this tool takes raw source and returns validation diagnostics.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (validate source before building), but no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. Given the many sibling tools, some routing guidance would help, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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