audit_animation

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

Without annotations, the description partially compensates by stating the tool returns JSON with specific fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral traits remain somewhat opaque.

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 concise, comprising three sentences and format examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured with bullet points or sections to improve readability for an agent.

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 complexity of 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It covers only a fraction of the input specification and omits details like default values and parameter constraints, leaving significant gaps for the 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only details the format for two parameters (overlap_pairs and layer_frame_ranges), leaving the other eight parameters (e.g., filename, start_frame, report_cels) completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 provides specific format examples for the key parameters overlap_pairs and layer_frame_ranges, making the purpose concrete and easily understood.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like animation_sanitize or other frame-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations to avoid, forcing the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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