evaluate_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the data types sampled (world transforms, camera visibility, bounding boxes) and the exact-frame sampling, which hints at a read-only evaluation. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, any side effects, or how the optional 'frames' parameter behaves when omitted. This is adequate but has clear gaps around precise behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by the purpose. There is no wasted wording; every element earns its place. It is concise and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains what data is sampled and for what purpose. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on parameter behavior (null frames) and the absence of any note on side effects (though likely read-only). Overall, it is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by linking the 'frames' parameter to 'exact frames', implying that the parameter specifies which frames to evaluate. However, it doesn't explain the default behavior when frames is null (e.g., whether all frames are evaluated) or any constraints on frame values. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 states a specific verb ('sample') and a clear resource ('evaluated world transforms, camera visibility, and bounding boxes') with a clear purpose ('for numeric verification of motion and spacing'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like inspect_scene or inspect_object_animation by focusing on quantitative evaluation at exact frames rather than general inspection.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or contrast with any sibling tool. The phrase 'for numeric verification' implies a use case, but there's no direct statement of when to prefer it over other inspection tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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