extract_animation_code

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the methodological approach (AST parsing) and a quality claim. It does not describe return format, side effects, prerequisites, or whether it only operates on the current page source, which is a significant gap for a tool that extracts code.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and method without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple interface and earns every word.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (AST parsing, multiple libraries) and the lack of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the extracted code looks like, how it is returned, or how this differs from similar sibling tools, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 sole parameter (includeExternalScripts) is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter's name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify what 'external scripts' includes or how the boolean affects extraction, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('GSAP, ScrollTrigger, and Lenis code'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_scroll_triggers or analyze_lenis by focusing on extraction of code rather than live inspection, and the AST parsing detail adds further specificity.

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 implies usage for extracting animation code and claims it is 'much more reliable than regex,' which hints at when to prefer this tool over naive methods. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools such as deep_script_analysis or trace_animation_execution, leaving the decision somewhat ambiguous.

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