get_motion_dna

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: it serves a cached corpus first and only then performs a live headless-browser capture, implying network access and variable latency for unseen URLs.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler; the output inventory comes first and the corpus/live-capture behavior follows. Every clause conveys usable information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields, which compensates. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency and the stated headless-browser fallback, an agent has enough to call this 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 100% (url and recapture are both documented in the schema), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description does not add syntax or format detail for either parameter, nor does it cross-reference the recapture flag against the corpus-first behavior it describes. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the Motion DNA of a website') and enumerates the returned content (animation stack, ScrollTrigger/pin/scrub counts, easing vocabulary, duration distribution). This clearly separates it from search_motion or record_site_motion, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: 'Serves the corpus first; live-captures unseen URLs' tells the agent when a live capture happens, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like search_motion or capture_live_site, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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