GSAP DrawSVG

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose, such as side effects, permissions, or return values. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about tool behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and no extraneous information is included.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested object, no output schema, low parameter coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters effectively, what the tool returns, or provide examples. The brief description is insufficient for full context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 43% (low), and the description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the parameters or their usage in more detail, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Animate SVG stroke drawing progress using DrawSVGPlugin.' It also distinguishes it from a sibling tool by specifying 'For morphing between shapes use gsap_morphsvg instead.' This provides a specific verb (animate), resource (SVG stroke), and differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use for line-drawing and reveal effects on SVG paths.' It also provides an alternative: 'For morphing between shapes use gsap_morphsvg instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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