animation_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the most important behavior: this tool does not actually scroll, only displays an animation. It does not detail side effects or return behavior, but for a non-destructive visual indicator the main safety-relevant trait is covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence prevents a critical misinterpretation about scrolling. Every word earns its place.

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 simple visual indicator tool with no output schema, the description and fully documented parameters are nearly sufficient. Minor gaps remain around coordinate-system basis and return value, but these are unlikely to prevent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented including the color default and direction enum. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about how x and y are interpreted or how direction affects the animation, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Show' with a clear resource 'visual scroll direction indicator animation' and explicitly disambiguates by saying 'Does NOT actually scroll.' This distinguishes it from mouse_scroll and other animation siblings without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clear context: this is a visual-only animation, not an actual scroll. It explicitly tells the agent when not to expect scrolling behavior. However, it does not name an alternative like mouse_scroll for actual scrolling, so routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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