Generate Layout System

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds that output is 'Deterministic real code' and states the delivery form: CSS custom properties plus Tailwind v4 @theme. This gives useful behavioral expectations without contradicting any annotation.

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 dense but well-structured: the main action and scope lead, followed by a concrete deliverable list, output format, and usage recommendation. Every clause contributes information with no filler; it is slightly long but justified by the tool's breadth.

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, the description serves as the output contract, listing all generated artifacts, the technical format, and the embedded design rules. Combined with complete parameter schemas and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the five parameters including defaults, ranges, and enum context. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden for parameter understanding.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Generate the layout foundation' and enumerates exactly what is produced: breakpoints, container max-widths, edge padding, a column grid, an auto-fit card grid, container queries, and a fluid section-rhythm scale. It also states the output format, CSS custom properties plus a Tailwind v4 @theme block, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling generators like generate_color_system or generate_type_scale.

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 description gives clear usage context by positioning the tool as the layout foundation other generators leave out, and explicitly recommends pairing it with generate_type_scale and generate_design_tokens. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or compare against all generate_* siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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