Wingo UI

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so they carry the safety profile. The description adds value where annotations are silent: it names the return shape (semver bump, breaking flag, release notes) and the source of inputs (wingo-ui.json). It does not cover how the tool handles unknown slugs or the item-count limit, which is a modest gap.

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: the operation and comparison target come first, and the return fields follow. Every clause carries information, with no boilerplate.

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, read-only compare tool with no output schema, covering input source, comparison target and return fields is nearly sufficient. It could have said what happens for unknown slugs or that an omitted version means lookup by hash, but those are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry that meaning, and it does: it says items consist of 'slug plus version and/or hash from wingo-ui.json.' This explains the optionality of version and hash and the file these values come from, which the bare schema does not; the only missing piece is behavior when both identifiers are supplied.

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 plus resource: 'Compare installed items ... with the latest Wingo UI release.' This is a precise version-diff operation, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling get_changelog, which retrieves a changelog rather than comparing installed versions.

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 implied context, comparing what is installed with the latest release, is reasonably clear. However, the description does not say when to prefer this tool over get_changelog, nor does it give conditions excluding its use; the agent must infer those relationships.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the result (a boolean-like plan/key status plus upgrade links), which annotations cannot convey. It does not mention auth requirements or any rate limiting, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the key fact (what status is reported) is front-loaded and the secondary detail (upgrade links) trails it. 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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the returned content (key/plan status plus upgrade links). It could say a bit more about the exact status values, but for a zero-arg read tool this is close to 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no invented argument information.

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 concrete resource being inspected (this connection's Wingo UI API key and Pro plan) and what comes back alongside it (upgrade/create-key links), so an agent knows exactly what this call answers. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous and the sibling tools (component/theme/changelog lookups) do not overlap with it.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only usage signal is implicit in the resource being a plan/API-key check; nothing tells the agent whether to call it before other tools or how often.

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, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the response includes the block plus the components it composes, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about source inclusion or response shape.

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 with the distinguishing comparison and usage cue front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the analogy-first phrasing slightly delays the core subject.

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 partially compensates by noting the response contains the block and its composed components. However, it leaves includeSource undefined and provides no guidance on slug sourcing beyond what the schema already states, so gaps remain.

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%: slug is documented (with a pointer to search_components) but includeSource has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 what is retrieved (blocks: full screens and sections) and gives concrete examples (login, settings, pricing pages), and differentiates itself from the sibling get_component via an explicit analogy. It works, though it relies on the agent already understanding get_component rather than naming the verb+resource directly.

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 when-to-use condition: 'Start screens from a block when one fits.' and implicitly positions itself against get_component. There are no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but the selection context is unambiguous.

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 the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds ordering and result content, but says nothing about pagination, truncation at limit, or behavior when 'since' is an unknown version.

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, zero filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the optional filter described second. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what is returned, in what order, and how to narrow results. Only minor gaps remain (what happens at the limit boundary, invalid version strings).

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%: 'since' is documented only by example in the schema, and the description clarifies its meaning ('get only what came after it'), which is genuine added value. 'limit' is left to the schema, but its default/min/max bounds make it self-explanatory.

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 the resource (Wingo UI releases) and the payload (release notes) plus ordering (newest first), which is specific enough for an agent to know what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling check_updates, so it falls 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?

It gives conditional guidance for one parameter ('Pass since ... to get only what came after it'), which implies usage but is really parameter semantics rather than task-level routing. There is no statement of when to prefer this over check_updates or other status tools, so guidance 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add value beyond that. It does so by disclosing the access model: free items are retrievable, while Pro items require a Pro API key — genuine auth context not present in the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the payoff ('Everything needed to use one item') and then enumerates the payload. Dense but efficient, with no filler sentences.

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 the return payload and does so thoroughly, and it adds the Pro API key access condition. Combined with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though routing guidance is absent.

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 all three parameters (slug, includeSource, includeExamples) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get a component) and enumerates the returned payload (description, props, parts, dependencies, install command, source files), so an agent knows exactly what this tool fetches. It does not, however, explicitly name siblings like search_components or get_install_instructions to sharpen the boundary.

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 focuses on what is returned rather than when to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the obvious alternative search_components; the only usage hint is indirect (item access requires a Pro API key for Pro items).

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 safety is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the return format (markdown) and the breadth of content, but says nothing about response size, pagination, or how the 'all' topic affects payload.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the essential subject (what the payload is), followed by a scannable list and a short call to action. The enumeration is long but each item maps to a real section, so it earns its space.

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 states the return format and content coverage; with annotations handling the safety profile and the schema handling the single parameter, nothing material is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 enum is self-documenting with a default, so the baseline is 3. The description's section list loosely mirrors the enum values but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A concrete verb+resource: it returns the Wingo UI design system as markdown, and the section list tells an agent exactly what content to expect. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling get_theme_tokens, which likely covers the 'tokens' section it advertises.

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?

'Follow them for every screen you build' gives a clear, unconditional usage context, so the agent knows this is guidance to apply broadly. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it or how it relates to alternatives like get_theme_tokens and get_component, which is the main gap.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the topic scope (init, tokens, dark mode, UIProvider defaults, components, updates, agent setup), which tells the agent what content it is fetching, but says nothing about output shape or length.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the purpose first and then lists the covered topics. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing topic enumeration reads as a run-on list rather than structured content.

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 read-only documentation fetch with no output schema, the description effectively summarizes the return content by enumerating the covered topics, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether this tool answers its question. It is not fully complete on framework-specific differences or package-manager behavior, but it is adequate.

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 0%, but both parameters are self-describing enums with defaults (framework: next|vite, packageManager: npm|pnpm|yarn|bun). The description corroborates the framework dimension ('Next.js or Vite') but says nothing about packageManager, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (retrieve setup instructions for a Next.js or Vite project using Wingo UI) plus an enumerated topic list that makes the scope concrete. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_component or get_theme_tokens, though it never explicitly names them.

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: you call this when setting up a new project. However, it never states when to use this versus the sibling docs tools (get_design_rules, get_theme_tokens, get_changelog) or that it is a setup-time-only resource, leaving routing to inference.

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 establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the content type (light and dark CSS variables, Tailwind mappings) and that output can be CSS or JSON, which helps the agent understand what will be returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, scope, and format options efficiently.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the format choices. It could be slightly stronger with explicit usage guidance or sibling-tool routing, but the core information is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the single 'format' parameter is mirrored by the description's 'as CSS ... or as JSON' and the default CSS use case is explained via the global stylesheet context.

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 the specific resource: Wingo UI CSS variables (light and dark) and their Tailwind mappings, plus the two output formats. It clearly identifies what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_design_rules or get_component.

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 by saying the CSS is 'to paste into the global stylesheet' and that JSON is an alternative format. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to sibling tools for related design-system needs.

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 establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the response contents (counts, example slugs) and framing the tool as a browsing entry point, which is exactly what an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and its payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is slightly dense due to stacked parentheticals ('total and free'), but that density carries real information rather than 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 is the only source of return-shape information, and it provides it (counts, example slugs). What remains unstated — ordering, whether all categories are always returned, pagination — is minor for a zero-parameter, closed-world browse 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 (list) and resource (categories) and goes beyond the name by naming the returned content — item counts (total and free) and example slugs. No sibling (search_components, get_component, get_theme_tokens) performs a category enumeration, so the agent can place it unambiguously.

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 trailing clause 'to browse the library' implies a discovery/browse use case, which hints at when to reach for this over search_components. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of a follow-up flow, and no statement of alternatives.

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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what comes back (slugs with one-line description, kind, access tier, version), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention limits or result-set size behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler: purpose, return shape, and the imperative usage rule. The most actionable instruction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It covers purpose, usage trigger, and result shape for a 5-parameter search tool; only edge behavior (empty results, paging/limit effects) is unaddressed.

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 60%, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden (kind, access, limit, category, query). The description adds the language constraint ('English keywords') and elaborates the resource kinds, but does not clarify limit semantics or the category relationship beyond the schema's own pointer to list_categories.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a precisely scoped resource set (components, blocks, hooks, helpers) with a search modality ('by keywords'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling retrieval tools like get_component or get_block, which fetch one known item rather than search across kinds.

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?

'Call this before writing any UI' gives a clear trigger condition for using the tool. It lacks an explicit alternative/naming of the follow-up (e.g., 'then use get_component with the returned slug'), so it is strong context without full when/when-not routing.

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