Review Motion

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses that no render/image is produced, that warnings are the output, and default thresholds (e.g. "default 3% of the comp's short side"). It stops short of describing the return structure or how warnings are organized.

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?

Everything is packed into a single 100+ word sentence with deeply nested parentheses ("(3D: by depth)", "(vertical comps: the top 10%...)"), making the long checklist hard to parse. The purpose is front-loaded, but the structure undermines scanability for a large criteria set that would read far better as a list.

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 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the review criteria and a couple of threshold defaults but omits the meaning of comp_id, max, and all, and never characterizes the returned warnings. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description must carry meaning, and it partially does: it explains max_hold, min_text (including its default), and that scene=false skips scene checks. However, comp_id, max, and all receive no explanation in either place, leaving clear gaps.

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 opening clause states a specific verb (critique) and resource (a comp's animation) and explicitly scopes it as "without rendering (cheap, no image)," which cleanly separates it from render/preview siblings like preview_frame and render_start. No sibling tool shares this review function, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

"Run after each scene and fix every warning" gives a concrete trigger point in the workflow, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to run it, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives/exclusions bar for a 5.

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