Get frontend-ready Moonvy UI spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output contents (metadata, tokens, component tree) but does not mention side effects, caching, rate limits, or explicit non-destructive behavior. As a read-style tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second focuses on controlling context size. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word 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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the response contains and how to limit its size. It does not describe includeHidden or potential error cases, but for a straightforward retrieval tool this is largely adequate.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to maxDepth and maxNodes by framing them as context-size controls, which is not present in the schema. However, it omits any explanation of includeHidden, leaving that parameter semantically vague.

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 ('return') and a clearly defined resource: a UI spec composed of design metadata, inferred design tokens, and a styled component tree. This distinguishes it from siblings that likely return only one aspect, and it is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 'Recommended development tool' signals primary use for development, and the guidance to use frameId/maxDepth/maxNodes to control context size gives practical usage direction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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