validate_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the validation and return but omits details about error handling (e.g., file not found), side effects (it implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state it is non-destructive), or performance considerations for large frame ranges.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence succinctly describes the output. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or output shape.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain all parameters, error conditions, or the exact structure of the returned JSON. Users would need to infer or experiment to use the tool correctly.

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 mentions 'frame range' but does not link to 'start_frame' and 'end_frame'. It doesn't clarify what 'required_layers' expects (layer names? IDs?) or what 'filename' refers to. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 validates presence of layers and cels across a frame range and returns a JSON structure listing missing items. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'ensure_layers_present' which likely focuses only on layers without frame-range or cels.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'audit_animation' or 'ensure_layers_present'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use the tool, or typical use cases.

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