GSAP Animation Presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It states the tool generates 'ready-to-use code' but does not elaborate on the output format, side effects, or limitations. While the core behavior is clear, more detail would be beneficial for a tool with no annotations.

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 states purpose, the second provides usage guidelines. It is tightly written with no unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 has no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and moderate complexity (many presets, nested options), the description provides adequate usage guidance but lacks details on return values, errors, or parameter behavior, making it incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 0% (no descriptions on properties except one nested 'text' field). The description only lists some preset types but does not explain the purpose of parameters like target, options, includeImports, or the options sub-properties. This leaves agents guessing what most parameters mean.

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 generates ready-to-use code for common animation patterns like fadeIn, slideUp, etc., and distinguishes itself from gsap_tween for custom animations, making the purpose specific and clear.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when the animation matches a standard pattern') and when not to, directing to gsap_tween for custom animations. This provides clear guidance and an alternative.

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