text_reveal_animation

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. The description only states it's an effect, without explaining what 'reveal' means (e.g., sliding in, fading?), whether it mutates the DOM, or any side effects. No behavioral details beyond the name.

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?

While very short (one phrase), the description is under-specified. It does not front-load actionable information; it simply restates the tool's purpose in a way that adds no value beyond the name. Conciseness without informativeness is not effective.

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 has four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a rich context of sibling text animations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the animation behavior, how direction affects reveal, the role of ease and duration, or what selector targets. The agent cannot use this tool correctly without guessing.

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 only 25% (only 'selector' has a description). The description adds no parameter information. For three of four parameters (ease, duration, direction), the agent has zero semantic clues from either schema or description, forcing complete reliance on parameter names and defaults.

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?

Description '文本揭示动画效果' is a tautological restatement of the tool name in Chinese, translating to 'text reveal animation effect'. It uses a vague noun phrase instead of a specific verb+resource structure, and it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like text_split_animation or text_scramble_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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling text animation tools. There are no prerequisites, context, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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