generate_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It adds the pre-condition (run evaluate_style) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or whether it overwrites existing files. The description is adequate but could be more detailed.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second gives a crucial usage instruction. No redundant words; highly 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and prerequisite. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the generated HTML page looks like or any constraints. Slightly more detail on the output would make it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (style, palette, archetype). The description merely lists them without adding new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool generates a 'full HTML starter page' given three inputs (style, palette, archetype). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_rules or generate_css_output.

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 explicitly instructs to run evaluate_style first, providing a clear prerequisite and recommended sequence. It does not state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is helpful for correct invocation.

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