swebsy_animate_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it is a 'smart, per-section staggered entrance' affecting 'headings, text, images, buttons, and cards' while skipping 'navbars/footers'. This gives the agent a good sense of what to expect. It does not mention reversibility or whether it overwrites existing animations, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds usage guidance. There is no wasted wording, and the key information (what it does, elements affected, when to use) is delivered efficiently. Perfectly structured for agent consumption.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to enable correct invocation. It covers the purpose, usage trigger, and behavioral details. It does not mention side effects like whether existing animations are overridden, but given the simplicity and the parameter info in the schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, an agent can confidently use this tool.

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 schema fully describes the single 'scope' parameter with enum values and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Per calibration, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value to raise it.

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 specific action ('Apply Swebsy's built-in scroll-reveal animation') and the resource it affects (page/site elements), and differentiates from manual animation via 'hand-placing animate-* classes'. It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from all sibling tools, which focus on sections, pages, or content manipulation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over hand-placing animate-* classes whenever the user asks to animate the page or site, or wants a consistent reveal.' This not only states the trigger condition but also compares it to an alternative, clarifying the preferred choice. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the condition is clear enough.

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