Brand Asset Pack Export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the deterministic nature disclosed in the description adds value. The statement 'No LLM cost' provides additional transparency about cost and behavior beyond the annotation, though more detail on output stability would strengthen this.

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 that front-load the most important information: what the tool returns and key behavioral traits (deterministic, no cost). No filler words; every sentence 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?

Given the complexity (multiple outputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main outputs but could briefly mention the expected structure or format. However, the reliance on the output schema for details makes this acceptable.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is already sufficient. No parameter-specific elaboration is present, so the baseline 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 'Complete brand asset pack' and lists specific outputs (CSS variables, Tailwind config, Figma tokens JSON, citation cards, Markdown brand guide). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a comprehensive export, not a single analysis or audit tool.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the description implies it's for final shipping, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like palette_export. The 'Deterministic. No LLM cost.' hints at safe repeated use but lacks context on alternatives.

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