help

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the progressive step behavior and the full-overview fallback. It could explicitly state that this is a read-only informational tool, but the described act of returning documents makes side effects highly unlikely.

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?

Every sentence earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded. The long list of frontend-related task types in the IMPORTANT sentence is somewhat dense, but it is necessary to define the mandatory scope of the tool.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mandatory usage context, parameter semantics, and return behavior completely. An agent has everything needed to correctly invoke this tool on the first call.

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 schema already documents the step parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage guidance beyond the schema by prescribing step=1 as the required first call and framing steps 2-5 as subsequent stages in a progressive guide. This is meaningful added context.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get usage instructions and recommended workflow') and further establishes it as the mandatory entry point for interface/frontend work. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, search, read, and keywords, which obviously handle different resources.

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 states when this tool MUST be used (any task involving interface development, UI/UX, animation, visual styling, etc.) and prescribes a concrete workflow: always start with step=1, then proceed through steps 2-5. It also documents the behavior when step is omitted, leaving no doubt about how to invoke it.

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