GSAP Performance Profiler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that monitor and profile are for development only, suggesting no side effects, but fails to describe the tool's output format (e.g., returns code as a string), whether it modifies anything, or any potential performance impact. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing modes concisely. It contains no filler or redundancy, though adopting a bulleted or more structured format could improve readability for an agent.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., generated code snippet, annotations). It also lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., GSAP version), or any limitations. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each mode's parameter usage (e.g., 'monitor ... provide options.metrics'). However, schema coverage is 67% (options lacks a top-level description), and the description does not detail the 'options' object or the possible values for 'action' beyond listing them, leaving some semantic 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 it generates performance measurement and optimization code for GSAP animations, listing three distinct modes. This provides a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gsap_analyze' or 'gsap_debug', which could have overlapping purposes.

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 gives context for each mode (e.g., 'requires code param' for optimize, 'provide options.metrics' for monitor) and advises to use monitor and profile only during development. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among the 17 sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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