find_animation_patterns

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing that results come from indexed notes ('when known from indexed notes') and that sources are cited. This clarifies the knowledge scope and output behavior beyond the structured 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information—what the tool does and what the results include—with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covers return values and safety, but the 0% parameter description coverage leaves gaps. The description does not explain the limit and framework parameters, making the tool's usage incomplete for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'query/use-case', which maps to query and use_case, but leaves 'limit' and 'framework' unexplained. The bare property names offer some hint, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool finds animation patterns for a query/use-case, using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by listing unique features like cost notes, accessibility, prefers-reduced-motion support, and source citations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when one needs animation patterns, and what results will include. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous and actionable.

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