Website Starter

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Inputs are bounded and processed transiently; nothing is stored.' This supports the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and clarifies that the creation is side-effect-free. It does not describe output retrieval, but the core behavioral promise is clearly 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the deliverable, the precondition, and the side-effect guarantee in one tight statement.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, this description leaves major gaps: what the ZIP contains, how each input shapes the result, what the tool returns, and how it relates to describe_starter and get_starter. The annotations cover side-effect safety, but the operational guidance is incomplete.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 11% and 9 parameters, the description needed to compensate by explaining parameter roles, but it only uses the generic word 'customized.' It provides no meaning for projectName, purpose, aiTool, computer, language, dynamicNeeds, existingRepo, existingSite, or publicLanguages.

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 ('Create'), a concrete resource ('customized instruction-only Website Starter ZIP'), and a clear precondition ('after the start_website interview'). It distinguishes itself from start_website by the phase it belongs to, though it does not explicitly contrast with describe_starter or get_starter.

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 phrase 'after the start_website interview' gives an explicit temporal precondition, which implies when the tool should be called. However, it provides no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools describe_starter or get_starter, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'safety boundaries' are part of the response content, which is modest added context, but no rate limits, auth needs, or failure modes are discussed.

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 listing exactly the four things returned, 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?

For a parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned content areas (version, download, safety boundaries) closely enough to set expectations. Adding a line on its relationship to get_starter would make it fully 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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 ('Describe') and resource ('Website Starter instruction set') plus the dimensions covered (version, download, safety boundaries). It reads as an informational lookup distinct from the mutating siblings create_starter/start_website, though it never explicitly names how it differs from get_starter.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is the metadata/inspection entry point versus get_starter, which is not stated anywhere in the description.

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, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not carry: that the link is public and that no authentication is needed. It stops short of describing the link's lifetime or format, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler, with the output (the link) front-loaded and the routing note immediately after. Every sentence 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, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what comes back, the sibling to prefer for guided setup, and the no-login constraint. Nothing material 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 single language parameter is fully enumerated in the schema. The description says nothing about the language parameter or how it affects the returned ZIP, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data – the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 ('Return a direct public link to the ... Website Starter ZIP') and contrasts itself with the guided alternative, start_website. An agent can distinguish it from create_starter and describe_starter without opening any schema.

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 explicitly names the alternative ('For a guided setup, use start_website first') and gives the selecting condition, so the routing decision is unambiguous. The 'No login is required' note further clarifies when this path is viable.

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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real workflow context the annotations cannot: that this is the entry point and that it branches on an existing repo versus a live interview. It never states what the call actually returns or whether it opens a persistent session, so the added value is moderate. The phrase 'create the instruction-only ZIP' sits in latent tension with readOnlyHint=true, but read against the sibling create_starter it most plausibly describes the workflow's downstream step, not a write performed by this call.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the routing rule ('Use this first: ...'). Almost every clause carries information. It is slightly cramped in the second sentence, which packs the two intake paths and the ZIP outcome into one run-on.

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 2-optional-param tool with no output schema and a full annotation set, a short description is defensible, and the flow context is useful. Still missing is what the agent receives back and what it should do next, and the two enum parameters are entirely unexplained. Adequate but with clear 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% and the description mentions neither 'client' nor 'language'. The enums (chatgpt/codex/claude/other, de/en) are largely self-describing and both have defaults, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description contributes no meaning about what these parameters change.

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 a concrete verb+resource: starting the 'guided Website Starter workflow' and producing 'the instruction-only ZIP'. That is more specific than the bare name start_website. It stops just short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with the sibling create_starter, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 instruction 'Use this first' plus the two branches ('continue an existing code repository' vs 'interview the person for a new build or migration') give clear, actionable when-to-use guidance. It lacks any explicit when-not or named-alternative routing (e.g. 'do not use if a starter already exists, use get_starter'), so it is clear but not complete.

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