imgui_animate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for typical behavioral disclosure. It does mention the animation is over time, supports easing and looping, provides duration, and mentions ping-pong looping behavior indirectly via the loop param. However, it does not disclose whether running multiple animations on the same property conflicts, whether animations auto-continue across frames, or how the agent observes completion.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, mechanism, and capabilities. Zero waste. It's reasonably front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor opportunity to add usage caveats but current density is good.

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?

With 8 parameters including enums for ease functions and properties, and no output schema, the description does a competent job but leaves gaps: no mention of behavior when animation completes, whether the property is set to 'from' immediately, interaction with existing animations on the same property, or the relationship to imgui_stop_animation. For the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but not rich.

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%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the concept of it being a tween and mentions loop/ping-pong, which reinforces the 'loop' and ease parameters. But it adds minimal bonus meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (animate), resource (widget property), and mechanism (tween/animation), with mention of easing functions and looping. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tools imgui_stop_animation and imgui_stop_all_animations, which are the natural counterparts for managing animations; while those are about stopping, not starting, the description could clarify scope.

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 description implies its use case (animating widget properties) but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternative approaches, no mention of prerequisites (widget must exist, valid property combo), and no guidance on whether animation requires a draw/render loop to take effect. It does not name alternatives like directly setting widget state via imgui_update_widget for instant changes.

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