GSAP Code Analyzer

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of issues detected (layout-triggering properties, v2 syntax, missing registerPlugin(), etc.) and the return format (scored issues with severity and fix suggestions). However, it does not mention if the tool modifies code or requires authentication, but given it's an audit tool, likely read-only.

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 only two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of what the tool does and returns. It could be more complete by specifying the output format or how the code input should be structured, but it is adequate for an analysis tool.

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 'code' has a description). The description adds context by listing the categories of issues it checks (performance, optimization, accessibility), which partially maps to the boolean parameters checkPerformance and checkAccessibility. However, it does not explicitly explain 'suggestOptimizations' or the default values, leaving some gaps.

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 'audit', the resource 'existing GSAP animation code', and the scope 'performance, optimization, and accessibility issues'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that gsap_tween or gsap_timeline should be used for generating new code.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when you want to check code before delivering it' and lists specific issues detected. It also provides alternatives for generating new code, making it clear when not to use this tool.

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