generate_stylesheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says it generates a stylesheet; it does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it acts on the current page or entire document, what 'complete' includes, or what the returned output contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It does not add unnecessary words, though it could be structured to also include key usage caveats without much bloat.

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 explain what a generated stylesheet looks like, how format and pageId affect the result, and whether this reads the whole document or a selected page. None of that is present, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior or return value.

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 coverage is 100%, with both format and pageId documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, but because the schema already handles semantics, the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a complete stylesheet from a design file.' It is clear about the action and object. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like export_design_specs, export_color_palette, or read_node_css, so an agent must infer where the boundaries lie.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for generating a whole stylesheet, but it never states explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent to guess among many export/generation siblings.

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