validate_walk_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool modifies the scene, requires specific setup (e.g., existing IK targets), or how it signals flagged displacement (e.g., error, return value). The description is silent on side effects and limitations, which is a significant gap for a tool that presumably validates animation.

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 core actions and key concepts. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (four parameters, one required), the lack of annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, usage context, or behavioral side effects. While an output schema exists (noting that return values are covered), the missing information about inputs and behavior leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It hints at concepts like 'paw IK targets' (likely target_names), 'walk' (frames), 'ground-contact' (ground_z), and 'displacement' (contact_tolerance), but does not explicitly map these terms to the actual parameters. An agent would struggle to correctly assign values without additional context.

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 the tool's purpose with specific actions ('sample', 'identify', 'flag') and resources ('paw IK targets', 'ground-contact frames', 'displacement'). It clearly distinguishes this as a validation tool, setting it apart from sibling tools like key_paw_pose, create_limb_ik, and inspect_scene, which focus on creation or inspection rather than validation of a walk cycle.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention that it should be used after creating IK targets or before rendering, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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