wait_for_animation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that frames are pumped at ~60fps and that it does NOT wait for all animations to settle, which is genuinely informative. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like potential state divergence, leftover animation states, or whether timed-out pending timers cause errors — gaps for a pump-based operation.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. Slight deduction because the ~60fps detail and default could be restructured, but overall tight and readable.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it doesn't mention return value, whether it can throw on leftover pending timers, or edge cases (e.g., pumping when animations never finish). Given the sister tool wait_for exists, some clarification on selecting between them would round out completeness.

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% (the single duration_ms parameter is documented with default and timing). The description adds minimal but useful context: duration in milliseconds, default 500, and the ~60fps frame-pumping detail that clarifies the actual behavior. Small incremental value over the schema, justifying slightly above baseline.

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 verb (pumps frames) and resource (specified duration), and explicitly contrasts with pumpAndSettle timing out. It distinguishes itself from what would be a natural sibling alternative (discovery tooling for animations). The hero transitions / page animations / custom animation controllers examples reinforce scope.

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 clear when-to-use context: hero transitions, page animations, or custom animation controllers where pumpAndSettle would time out. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need animations fully settled) or reference sibling tools like wait_for as alternatives, so it misses the exclusion criterion for a full 5.

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