text_split_animation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only mentions the license, but does not describe effects such as DOM manipulation, animation creation, or side effects. The agent has no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief and lacks substantive information beyond the license note. It could be restructured to provide more value while remaining concise.

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 that there are 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. The agent does not know the return value, prerequisites (e.g., SplitText plugin must be loaded), or how the parameters interact. The description is insufficient for correct tool usage.

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 only 20% (only 'selector' is described). The description adds no explanation for the other four parameters (stagger, duration, splitType, animationType). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the agent lacks critical context, such as the meaning of 'stagger' or enum values.

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 'text split animation' and the license requirement, which conveys the basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling text animation tools (e.g., text_reveal_animation, text_scramble_animation), and the use of Chinese limits clarity for international agents.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is the license requirement, but there is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites beyond the license, or exclusion criteria for other text animations.

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