webdev_border_radius_generator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details such as collapsing identical corners to shortest form, local execution without external service, and rate limiting, which go beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. While it contains multiple sentences, each adds necessary value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured without waste.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values, but it still summarizes the returned items (CSS string, uniformity flag, HTML preview, echoed values, usage examples). This makes the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it explains that missing corners default to 0, empty object returns HTTP 400, and previewSettings only affect the preview HTML, not the generated CSS. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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 that the tool generates CSS border-radius code from per-corner pixel values, returning optimized declarations, usage snippets, and an HTML preview. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like webdev_box_shadow_generator and webdev_css_gradient_generator.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance by naming alternative tools for shadows, gradients, and filters. It also informs about local execution, read-only behavior, non-destructive nature, and rate limits, aiding the agent in selecting the correct tool.

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