get_animation_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only lookup by describing the content as examples/patterns, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is safe. It adds context like 'Canonical' and 'Brand-neutral', but behavioral traits are minimal.

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 extremely concise, with only two short phrases that each communicate meaningful information: what the tool provides and the brand-neutral attribute. It is front-loaded and has no 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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'usage' entails or the return format, and there are no annotations or output schema. It is complete enough for a trivial case but leaves some gaps.

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 covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage) with an enum and default behavior described. The description adds no parameter information, so it neither contributes nor detracts. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the resource (canonical DS animation patterns) and adds scope ('CSS keyframes + usage', 'Brand-neutral'). While it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_animation_examples' supplies the action. It is fairly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_design_tokens or get_theme_presets, though it doesn't 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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