inspect_animation_quality

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey what is analyzed, and 'Audit' suggests a read-only inspection. However, it does not state whether the operation modifies anything, how results are returned, or whether any preconditions apply.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that names the operation and all key audit dimensions. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or restating of the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the audit returns (e.g., a report, pass/fail, or metrics) and what conditions are needed to run it. The current description tells an agent what it audits but not what it gets back, leaving an important gap.

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% for the single 'filename' parameter, and the description never mentions the parameter, accepted file formats, or how the filename is resolved. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the absence of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('an animation'), plus a concrete list of quality dimensions: duplicate frames, timing, palette drift, movement bounds, and loop seams. This is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling audit_animation tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus audit_animation, inspect_asset_batch, or other inspection tools. The verb 'Audit' implies appropriateness for quality checks, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative conditions are given.

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