physics_spring_animation

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

No annotations are present, and the description is insufficient to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the tool mutates state, requires specific permissions, or returns a value. The description carries the full burden but fails.

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 extremely short (5 characters), which is not concise but underspecified. It lacks structure and does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the tool's complexity (physics parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, behavior, or how the animation is applied.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters (mass, target, tension, friction, properties). While the tool description adds no extra meaning, the schema already explains each parameter sufficiently, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 '弹簧动画效果' (spring animation effect) is too vague. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., applies a spring animation to a target element). It also fails to distinguish from sibling tools like physics_draggable or create_interactive_animation.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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