check_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Without playing it' implies a non-destructive read and it discloses the report contents, which is useful. However, it never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, does not say whether it mutates state, and says nothing about failure modes (missing path, malformed 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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core measurement list comes first, then the mode semantics. Every clause carries information, though the run-on enumeration of measurements sacrifices some scannability.

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 measured output fields are well described, which compensates for the missing output schema. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, four of five parameters remain undocumented, and nothing is said about error behavior or what `path`/`layer`/`frames` should contain.

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% across 5 parameters. The description thoroughly explains `kind` and its three modes, but leaves `tag`, `path`, `layer`, and `frames` entirely undefined in both schema and description. Only one of five parameters is given meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Measure an animation without playing it') and enumerates the exact measurements produced (bounds, ground row, centroid, height, repeated frames, colour drift, spacing). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lint, compare, or find_glitches, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 kind values carry real usage context: 'loop' for walk/idle that must close, 'oneshot' for attack/hurt/death that may hold poses, 'scene' for multiple actors where it only reports. That tells the agent which mode to pick, but there is no guidance on when to reach for check_animation versus lint, find_glitches, or compare.

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