trace_animation_execution

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'inject tracing,' which implies modification of the page without specifying side effects, reversibility, or expected output. It doesn't mention whether this alters runtime behavior or how it impacts the page after execution.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It prioritizes the main purpose and is front-loaded, though it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters or behavior without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (nested parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the one-line description is insufficient. Users don't know what the returned data looks like, whether tracing changes the page, or how scrollRange interacts with the scroll event, leaving significant gaps for reliable 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 input schema defines a nested 'scrollRange' object with start and end, but the description provides no explanation of what these parameters do or how they affect tracing. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no value in clarifying parameter meaning or format.

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 action: injecting tracing to capture GSAP calls during scroll. It uses a specific verb phrase and names the target (GSAP calls) and context (during scroll). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, it is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scroll_and_record or get_scroll_triggers. There are no prerequisites or use-case indicators, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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