animation_trail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the tool is a visual-only animation and that the mouse is not actually moved, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention return behavior or whether it blocks, but the core non-mutating nature is explicitly disclosed.

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 sentences, no filler. The main purpose is stated first, and the critical caveat about not moving the mouse is given its own sentence. 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 animation tool with only three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential usage: it shows a trail, takes coordinates, and does not move the mouse. Minor gaps like return value and whether execution is synchronous are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes points, color, and duration with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'along a path of coordinates' reinforces the meaning of the points parameter but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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: a visual mouse movement trail along a path of coordinates. The explicit caveat 'Does NOT actually move the mouse' sharply distinguishes it from mouse_move and other animation tools in the sibling set.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for visual feedback only and explicitly rules out actual mouse movement, which guides the agent away from using it for real cursor movement. It does not explicitly name an alternative like mouse_move, but the exclusion is clear enough in context.

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