gsap-split-text

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

The description lacks behavioral traits beyond the requirement. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not explain what happens when splitting text, side effects, or output format.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the core action and a key requirement. However, it could include more context without losing brevity.

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 and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'split' means, the return value, or behavioral outcomes, leaving gaps for the agent.

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% for the single parameter, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. The description does not add any information beyond the schema's 'Text element selector'.

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 it splits text for animations, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gsap-animate or gsap-stagger by its unique purpose of splitting text, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional information is a prerequisite (GSAP Club membership), which does not help the agent choose between siblings.

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