Get a complete hero section concept: headline + subline copy (no marketing cliches), CTA labels, exact background treatment, and copy-paste ambient motion CSS matched to the design direction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business | Yes | The business this hero sells | |
| direction | No | Direction pack id from get_design_direction (e.g. coastal-film) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool returns a concept with specific content components and includes quality constraints (e.g., 'no marketing cliches') and copy-paste CSS. While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, the read-only nature is implicit in 'get'. This is adequate behavioral disclosure for a retrieval tool.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists deliverables in a clear sequence. Every phrase adds value with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description enumerates all key content of the output (headline, subline, CTA, background, motion CSS) and notes the dependency on design direction. It lacks explicit return structure, but for a concept generation tool it's sufficiently 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a connection between the direction parameter and the output 'matched to the design direction,' but the schema already explains both parameters sufficiently. No substantial additional parameter semantics are introduced.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a 'complete hero section concept' and enumerates specific deliverables (headline, subline copy, CTA labels, background treatment, ambient motion CSS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_section_code or get_component_code by focusing on the full creative concept rather than just code.
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 implies usage after obtaining a design direction, and the direction parameter explicitly references get_design_direction as the source. It provides clear context on when to use this tool (to generate a hero concept tied to a design direction) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. This is a clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: build_from_reference and build_from_reference_v2 serve nearly the same purpose, make_it_standout and polish_and_prove overlap heavily, and get_design_direction, synthesize_direction_from_references, and build_from_reference_v2 all produce design directions. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_design_direction, search_references, watch_site). Minor deviations like client_report, make_it_standout, and polish_and_prove are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.
30 tools is too many for a design toolkit, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Many 'get' tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_hero_concept, get_motion_recipes, get_asset_pack could be one tool). The count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.
The tool set covers the full design/build/critique/report/watch lifecycle well, from direction and sections to client reports and site monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit 'update' or 'delete' for references), but these are not critical to the core workflow.