Extract website animations

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it scrolls the page and compares styles before/after to capture reveal effects, and it detects specific libraries. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that is dense with useful specifics, front-loaded with the primary action ('Extract a website's motion design'). Every clause adds value, listing concrete extraction targets without redundancy or filler.

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 (11 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description sufficiently captures the core function and behavior. It does not explain return structure, but the output schema covers that. It covers the main behavioral trait (scrolling) and the range of extracted data, making it complete enough for agent selection.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'scrolling' implicitly but does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It neither repeats nor enhances the parameter documentation.

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 function with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('website's motion design') and enumerates concrete outputs: @keyframes definitions, per-element animation/transition settings, animation libraries, and scroll-triggered effects. This level of detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_layout or capture_interactions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by listing exactly what it extracts (motion design, libraries, scroll effects), implying use cases for animation analysis. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top tier for this dimension.

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