tune_animations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the detection of multiple animation libraries, generation of an interactive tuner, and export functionality. It lacks explicit mention of potential side effects beyond writing a file, but overall transparent.

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 concise paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The description covers main behavior, use case, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., no animations found), but given no output schema and full parameter documentation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with all 5 parameters described. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema definitions, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 that the tool detects animations and generates an interactive tuner HTML page, specifying supported animation libraries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like review_url by explicitly focusing on tuning rather than reviewing.

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 includes an explicit usage statement: 'Use when the user wants to fine-tune existing animation parameters, NOT to review for issues.' This directly contrasts with the review-focused sibling tools.

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