tsquare wireframes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses both outcomes (a PNG on success, per-line problems plus the valid options on failure) and the expected retry behavior. It does not mention cost, size limits, or latency, which keeps 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return contract and the retry instruction. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no 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 does the necessary work of explaining both return shapes (PNG vs. line-numbered problems), which is the main gap it needed to close. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on how to obtain valid tsquare syntax would round it out.

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 both `text` and `flows` are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that the input is tsquare text to be validated and rendered; it says nothing extra about the `flows` toggle, 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 specific verb and resource ("Check ... and render" the tsquare wireframe text) and names the concrete artifact produced (a PNG of the board). It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions its siblings (wireframe_guide, share_wireframe), so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 usage loop: call it, and if the text is invalid, fix every reported problem and call again. That is actionable guidance for the main workflow, though it offers no explicit when-not or pointer to wireframe_guide for learning tsquare syntax.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior it could not get elsewhere: each link embeds the entire compressed wireframe, so anyone holding a link can read the content. That is a meaningful disclosure about self-contained, unauthenticated output. It stops short of describing link length limits or expiry, which the 'each link is long' remark only hints at.

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, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then caller guidance, then the key privacy note. The lead-in clause with its playground-menu analogy is a bit loose but earns its place by pointing at a known reference; 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?

For a read-only three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, output kinds, defaults, and the data-embedded-in-link property an agent must know before generating links for a user. Only sibling routing 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 100%, so text, flows, and links are already fully documented, including the enum meanings and the [svg, share] default. The description restates the default and adds the 'ask only for what the user needs' phrasing, but contributes no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 correct.

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 resource (tsquare wireframe text) and enumerates exactly what is produced: a playground edit share link, SVG/PNG image links, Markdown and HTML. The opening phrase "Links for valid tsquare wireframe text" is slightly garbled rather than a clean verb+object, and it never names the sibling render_wireframe to distinguish 'get links' from 'render'.

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 concrete caller guidance ("Ask only for the links the user needs") plus a stated default of SVG + share, and the schema's links enum explains when each format is appropriate (Notion/GitHub, READMEs, web pages). It does not say when to prefer this over render_wireframe, so routing between siblings is left 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned content (format, rules, example, component props), which is important because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about size, caching, or whether the guide is versioned.

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 compact sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the call instruction last. No filler, though the colon-separated content list is slightly dense rather than structured.

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 no-parameter, read-only documentation tool, the definition covers what the agent gets back and when to fetch it, compensating for the absent output schema. Minor gaps around response size or staleness keep it below the top mark.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 3 applies; no parameter claims are made or needed.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the tsquare text format, its rules, a worked example, and every component with its props. That is specific enough to distinguish this documentation tool from the action siblings render_wireframe and share_wireframe, though it never names those siblings 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?

"Call it once before writing your first wireframe" gives a clear trigger condition and implicitly bounds frequency with "once." It stops short of explicit exclusions (for example, whether to re-call when a component name is forgotten), but the when-to-use signal is unambiguous.

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