opointo

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuine value beyond them by clarifying it is a 'read-only text scan, not a guarantee' and therefore best-effort rather than exhaustive — a limitation an agent would otherwise not know.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the bug classes and closed with the scope caveat and sibling routing. No sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly conveys expected findings (blank renders with no error) and sets expectations that results are heuristic, not guaranteed. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter ('code', 'the TSX to check'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the input format or size limits, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Scans') and resource ('TSX that uses these components') and enumerates the exact bug classes it detects. It is clearly distinguishable from verify_app, which it explicitly names as the project-wide alternative.

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?

Explicitly frames this as a narrow per-snippet check and routes whole-project validation to verify_app. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. what happens if the snippet lacks these components), so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations cannot: results are ranked, and the catalog may intentionally return nothing when the platform's native control is preferable — a non-obvious negative-result contract.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with what the tool does and the ranking behavior before the omit-need shortcut. Slightly dense phrasing ('ships nothing on purpose') but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (ranked components, purpose text, whether a real system control renders). The only notable gap is the unexplained `category` enum, which the schema also fails to document.

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 50%, and the description only compensates for `need` (omit it to list all). The `category` enum (controls/chrome/surfaces) is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, so the agent must guess what those buckets mean.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds the component') scoped to a plain-language UI need, and adds the distinctive behavior of ranked results plus deliberate-absence signaling. It implicitly separates itself from the id-lookup sibling (get_component) but never names it, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 one concrete usage rule: omitting `need` lists every component with purpose and system-control status. Beyond that it offers no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or prerequisites for the ranked search path.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not repeat it. It adds only that results are scoped per topic and are conceptual guidance rather than live state. No error, pagination, or freshness behavior is 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?

The single sentence opens with the fragment 'How an app is set up so these components work and follow its theme, one topic at a time:', which is not a clause and delays the actionable content. The enumerated topics arrive only after a heavy preamble, so the definition is not front-loaded and reads awkwardly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so for all three topics. The emit_app note gives useful context about when the setup is already wired. Only the platform-scoping behavior for 'rules' is undocumented.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate — and it does for the required 'topic' parameter by explaining what each of the three enum values yields (providers/theme/rules). The optional 'platform' parameter's 'rules only' constraint is left entirely to the schema, which is the remaining gap.

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 names the resource (app setup guidance) and enumerates the three concrete outputs — app-root providers in working order, theme hooks and token scales, or catalog-wide rules — so an agent knows what each topic returns. The verb is buried ('How an app is set up...'), but the content is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_component or find_component. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one topic at a time' and the enum values tell the agent how to call it, and 'An app built by emit_app already has all three wired' hints that the tool may be redundant after emit_app. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or named alternative for looking up component details, so guidance stays inferential.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the response, per-platform rendering differences, required root providers, and 'runtime rules that stop it rendering blank' — useful for an agent deciding whether the call is sufficient.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what comes back with no filler. Slightly list-like and could be scannable as bullets, but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly — props, defaults, allowed values, platform rendering, providers, dependencies and runtime rules. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the description adds no information about slug or platform beyond the schema (the enum and 'only the rules that hold there' note live in the schema itself). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear resource and scope: it returns everything needed to write a call site for one component, enumerating props/types/defaults, platform rendering, providers, dependencies and runtime rules. An agent can distinguish it from find_component (discovery) and install_component (mutation/installation), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 framing 'everything needed to write a correct call site' implies pre-use before installing or emitting a component, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as find_component. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already richly declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine auth-type precondition (subscription requirement) and describes the deliverables, but the 'Adds one component to an existing project' framing sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, creating some ambiguity rather than fully clarifying behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences with essentially no filler; every clause carries information. The only structural nit is that it front-loads the subscription precondition rather than the core purpose, and the deliverable list is tightly packed, but it remains efficient.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers the precondition, the mutation-free generative output (files, install order, target paths, install line, providers, runtime rules), and the recipe-id branch. The only missing piece, sibling routing, is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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% and the single slug parameter is already documented with both examples ('button' and a recipe id such as 'supabase'). The description's note that a backend recipe id 'adds that integration' with its own files and per-app wiring adds modest meaning beyond the schema, but largely echoes the schema's own example, so the high-coverage baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource — it 'adds one component to an existing project' — and details exactly what that yields (files in install order with target paths, the install line, providers, runtime rules), plus the recipe-id variant. It is clear on its own but never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_component, find_component, or add_screen, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only eligibility guidance is the precondition 'Needs a subscription, except for the free foundation components,' which acts as a partial when-not gate. There is no explicit routing guidance telling the agent when to pick install_component over get_component/find_component or add_screen, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotency, so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the result is an unsaved design and that dryRun avoids producing a link, but the 'into' behavior ('it lands in their open design') is murky and suggests an in-place mutation that is never clearly explained.

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 first sentence is a reasonable front-loaded opener, but the remainder degenerates into run-on, grammatically broken fragments ('into: the code in the person's line;', 'a short plan's.'). The content is short but its structure impedes parsing rather than serving 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?

For a nested-object, mutation-ish tool with no output schema and 4 params, the description does cover the key return (a Designer link), the unsaved state, and dryRun semantics. It leaves the 'into' write path and error/failure behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. The 'format' explanation adds genuine value by naming the 'photos' and 'app: {version: 1}' plan variants not in the schema, but the 'into' gloss ('the code in the person's line; it lands in their open design') is too fragmented to clarify the parameter's type or meaning. Net compensation is weak.

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 opening states a specific action and resource: send an app spec in opointo's format and receive a link that opens it in the Designer as a new, unsaved design. It also implicitly differentiates from emit_app by framing this as the proposal step that hands back for emit_app. The clarity is undercut by garbled later sentences, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It sketches the workflow ('the person sees every screen, changes what they like, and hands it back for emit_app') and mentions dryRun as a check-only mode, which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and the sibling relationship to emit_app and propose_screen is only obliquely implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower, and the description does add real value: the result is a new *unsaved* design a person can change, plus a dryRun check mode. However, the 'into' behavior is left as a cryptic cross-reference rather than a disclosed trait, and there is no note on whether anything persists.

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 size is reasonable, but structure is poor: 'into: as propose_app's.' is a dangling fragment with no verb, and the run-on first sentence buries the return-value behavior (a link) mid-clause. Front-loading the purpose helps, but the shorthand-style gaps make it read as under-specified rather than concise.

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 a nested composition object, no output schema, and one badly described parameter (into), the description covers the essentials of what happens (unsaved design + link, dryRun) but leaves the 'into' semantics and any auth/permission expectations unaddressed. It is workable but not complete.

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 coverage is 50%. The description supplies meaning for dryRun ('checks without making a link') and format ('true returns the format'), and the composition format is documented in the schema itself. The 'into' parameter is effectively undocumented beyond a pointer to propose_app's behavior, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send one screen and get back a link that opens an unsaved design in the Designer. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling propose_app ('For a whole app, use propose_app'). The clarity is slightly eroded by the broken fragment 'into: as propose_app's.', which reads as leftover notes rather than a complete sentence.

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?

It gives a clear alternative and selection rule ('For a whole app, use propose_app') and explains that dryRun checks without producing a link, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of contrasting against add_screen, even though it name-drops the relation indirectly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it names the file it reads, scopes the output to changed opointo-supplied files, guarantees it never touches the customer's own screens, and discloses the flagging behavior for changes needing a code edit rather than a copy.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the subscription prerequisite front-loaded before the core behavior. Information is well ordered and each sentence carries a distinct point (precondition, mechanism/benefit, scope guarantee).

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned (only changed opointo-supplied files) and the flagging outcome. Given 100% schema coverage and explicit annotations, the remaining gap is only the absence of named sibling alternatives, which is minor for a four-parameter tool with nested objects.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including their conditional triggers. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (it only restates the manifest concept as .opointo/files.json), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it reads the project's .opointo/files.json and returns the opointo-supplied files that changed since export. That is clear and disambiguates the misleadingly named 'update' tool (which is actually a read), but it never names a sibling (install_component, get_component, verify_app) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

It gives a precondition ('Needs a subscription') and a benefit context ('works months later with no share code'), and the schema params carry conditional triggers ('only when the answer's page.next asks for it'). However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the sibling tools, so usage is only implied.

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