diff_animation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what 'compare' entails, whether there are side effects, what output format is produced, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 entire description is a single short, front-loaded sentence ('Compare two Animation .tres files.') with no redundant information or unnecessary phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no output schema or annotations, and the description fails to explain what the comparison returns or how results are delivered. For instance, it does not state whether it outputs unified diff, a boolean, or a report. This is a notable completeness gap even for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters (path_a and path_b) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters.

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 ('Compare') and identifies the resource type ('Animation .tres files'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling diff tools like diff_scene and diff_resource by specifying the file type.

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 such as diff_resource or diff_scene. It only states the core function without any contextual hints or exclusions.

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