UI to Artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention how the image source is processed, what format the output takes, or any requirements/limitations (e.g., image size, type). This is insufficient for a conversion 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 single-sentence description is concise and to the point. It wastes no words but could benefit from a second sentence to clarify parameter roles or output behavior without harming conciseness.

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?

Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits crucial details about the output format, the meaning of each output type, and how the tool handles the image. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'output_type' by listing the four enum values. The 'image_source' and 'prompt' parameters are not described at all, leaving ambiguity about their format or purpose.

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 converts a UI screenshot into one of four specific outputs (code guidance, recreation prompt, design spec, description). This distinct purpose sets it apart from siblings like analyze_image (general) or ui_diff_check (comparison).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ui_diff_check, diagnose_error_screenshot). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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