get_scroll_triggers

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 states what the tool does but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether a page must be open, potential side effects (e.g., reading DOM or triggering layout), or error conditions. Basic behavioral context is omitted.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema information. It is a model of conciseness.

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, the description should explain what the returned data looks like. It says 'with their configurations', giving a general idea but not a complete picture. It also omits contextual prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded) that sibling tools imply. However, the tool is simple with minimal complexity, so a score of 3 reflects adequate completion with 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds slight semantic value by mentioning 'configurations', which hints at the return content, but no parameter details are needed. There is nothing to subtract.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all ScrollTrigger instances'), including the scope ('on the page') and the included detail ('with their configurations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_animations or analyze_lenis.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. Context signals list sibling tools, but the description does not mention any use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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