analyze_lenis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze... configuration and behavior,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or what the analysis returns. It fails to communicate expected outputs or whether any page state changes occur.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks detail about the analysis outcomes or expected behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of many sibling tools, this is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about what 'behavior' means or what results to expect.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying the subject (Lenis smooth scroll) and what is analyzed (configuration and behavior), which is sufficient given there are no parameters to explain.

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 the specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource: 'Lenis smooth scroll configuration and behavior.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_animation_code or get_scroll_triggers, which focus on different aspects of animation and scrolling.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other sibling tools would be preferred. With 15 sibling tools, this absence of directional context is a significant gap.

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