ui_to_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently defines the tool's scope (UI screenshots only) and output types, and explicitly excludes other use cases. It does not disclose potential failure modes or limitations, but for a transform tool that is acceptable.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then using brief bullet-style lists for when-to-use and when-not-to-use. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers selection criteria and expected artifacts. It explains what the tool produces (code, prompt, spec, description) and explicitly excludes non-UI content, making it complete for an agent to decide invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters. The description enhances this by mapping each output_type enum value to its real-world use (e.g., 'code' for frontend code, 'prompt' for UI reproduction), adding semantic context beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 the tool converts UI screenshots into code, prompts, design specs, or natural language descriptions. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by listing exclusions like text extraction and technical diagrams.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (four specific output_type scenarios) and when not to use it (text/code extraction, error messages, technical diagrams, data visualizations). This provides clear selection criteria versus sibling tools.

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