generate_state_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the exact content generated (the five named states and their treatments), but never states that this is a mutating operation that creates nodes, whether placement is affected by x/y, idempotency, or permissions. It chooses between a Section and a Component Set yet exposes no parameter to control that choice, leaving behavior ambiguous.

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 with no filler; the action leads and the payload follows. Slightly dense parenthetical enumeration, but every clause is load-bearing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least signal the mutating nature and return context. It covers the generated content well but omits the creation/placement behavior and any indication of what is returned, leaving an agent with an incomplete operational picture for a 6-param generator.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including enums and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Generate) and resource (the 5 states of UI), enumerating exactly what is produced: Ideal, Empty, Loading, Empathetic Error, Partial. It names the artifact forms (Figma Section or Component Set) but never distinguishes itself from near siblings such as generate_ui_tree or generate_interactive_variants, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the text when this state matrix is preferable to generate_interactive_variants or generate_ui_tree.

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