build_pose_stub

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely extra behavior: frames preloaded inline, camera path interpolated between snapshot scroll ratios, prefers-reduced-motion static fallback, and no network access — context an agent cannot get from the hints alone.

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 but front-loaded: the rendering action leads, then input provenance and behavioral caveats follow. Every clause carries information, though the em-dash run-on is heavy and the trailing 'no awwwards.com access' clause is a slightly awkward tack-on.

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?

For a two-param build tool with no output schema, the description explains behavior thoroughly but never says what the tool returns or where the stub page lands (inline payload? file path? HTML string?). That missing return-shape detail is the main completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds downstream meaning: scrollCensus yields 'census-derived st/pin/ease suggestions' and the pose grid is the 'pose-grid-v1' variant from a specific tool. That clarifies the effect of the optional input beyond the schema's terse field notes.

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 concrete verb and artifact: renders a pose-grid-v1 capture into a standalone scroll-scrubbed three.js stub page. It names the upstream producing tools (capture_pose_3d, analyze_scroll_map), so an agent can place it precisely in the pipeline rather than guessing among build/verify siblings.

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 origin of both inputs ('from capture_pose_3d', 'from analyze_scroll_map') implies the prerequisite flow, and 'Pure build — no page fetches, no awwwards.com access' draws a clear boundary against the fetch-oriented siblings. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative, so 4 rather than 5.

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