inspect_animation_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does explain the frame sampling behavior ('If frames are omitted they are evenly sampled across the timeline'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose output format, potential performance costs, or side effects of rendering, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage context, and a parameter behavior note. Front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words, and each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and one parameter behavior but omits details on return value (e.g., file path, format), tile sizing semantics, and how the 'sample_count' interacts with 'frames'. An agent calling this correctly would need more guidance, but the core purpose is clear.

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 clarify parameters. It only addresses the 'frames' parameter (even sampling when omitted). The meanings of 'tile_width', 'tile_height', and 'sample_count' are not explained, relying on parameter names that may be ambiguous. This is insufficient given the zero coverage.

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 action ('Render') and the resource ('animation frames'), producing a 'labeled contact sheet'. This distinguishes it from siblings like render_frame (single frame) and inspect_object_animation (data inspection). It is specific and not a tautology.

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?

Gives explicit context for use ('Use after edits to visually verify poses, timing, continuity, staging, and camera motion'), which is clear and actionable. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given sibling names.

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