build_gsap_stub

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully reinforces that this is a pure JSON build with no page fetches, but it does not add details about the returned stub, error behavior, or any limits beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble and the key output is stated first. The parenthetical adds useful qualification without excessive length.

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 only two simple parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: required scrollCensus, optional poseGrid, and the fact that no network fetching occurs. It could be stronger by clarifying the expected return form, but the current detail is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds some meaning by noting that scroll census provides animation evidence and that pose grid is optional and contributes camera anchors, but this mostly aligns with what the schema already says.

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 and artifact — 'Generate a runnable GSAP+ScrollTrigger timeline stub' — and names its evidence inputs (scroll census anims and optional pose grid camera anchors). It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as build_pose_stub or build_motion_manifest.

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?

It gives implied usage context by saying the stub is built from captured motion evidence and is a 'pure build from provided JSON, no page fetches'. However, it does not state when to use this instead of the related build_pose_stub or build_motion_manifest tools, nor does it give explicit prerequisites or exclusions beyond the input types.

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