lemon_motion_recipe

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond schema: it promotes copy-paste usability, notes reduced-motion handling in every recipe, and lists specific patterns, which aids in setting expectations. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries more responsibility, but it does not disclose missing aspects like output format limits or potential errors (e.g., invalid id behavior). It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose ('Copy-paste motion code recipes'), then lists specifics, and ends with the reduced-motion point. Every sentence contributes to understanding what is included, with no fluff.

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?

The description is comprehensive for what it offers: it enumerates the exact recipes, mentions reduced-motion, and the param list is exhaustive. Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the necessary context well. It could mention that omitting id returns a list, but the schema has that. It is near-complete.

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%, so parameters are fully described. The description does not add much beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but it does reinforce the search and filter capabilities implicitly. Since the schema already documents all three params, a baseline of 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 this provides copy-paste motion code recipes for specific patterns, naming the list of technologies (CSS scroll-driven, GSAP, GSAP+Lenis). It is highly specific and distinct from siblings, which focus on design principles, palettes, typography, etc. It also indicates the inclusion of reduced-motion handling, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for developers needing ready-to-use motion code, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lemon_section_recipe (which might also include motion recipes) or lemon_trend_report. It does mention reduced-motion, but lacks explicit conditions or exclusions.

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