Debug Lenis Scroll Issue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating no side effects. The description adds context about being diagnostic and returning a diagnosis, which is consistent and adds moderate value beyond 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 concise with four clear bullet points, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description includes a Returns section with expected output (diagnosis with causes, fixes, code snippets) and examples. For a 3-parameter tool, this is complete and helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description's Args section provides clear explanations for each parameter, including defaults and examples, adding meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'symptom' examples like 'janky on Safari').

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 uses a specific verb ('diagnoses') and clearly identifies the resource ('Lenis smooth scroll issues'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on creating patterns, generating setup, API reference, and optimizing performance.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for diagnosing scroll issues) and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools give implicit context.

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