Generate Multi-Screen Flow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Generate' which aligns with write operation, but does not disclose additional behavior like authentication needs, whether screens are appended or replaced, or rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations imply, resulting in a score of 3.

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 sentence of 12 words with an example, making it very concise. There is no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key attributes) but remains efficient and front-loaded with core purpose.

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 of a multi-screen flow generator with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'consistent design' means, how the designSystemId is used, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. Essential context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively is missing.

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 description coverage is only 33% according to context, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details. It does not explain the meaning of 'screens' array contents, the effect of 'deviceType', 'framework', 'componentLibrary', 'accessibility', 'responsive', or 'designSystemId'. The brief description adds no value beyond the schema's existing descriptions for the covered parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it generates multiple related screens in one call with consistent design, distinguishing it from single-screen generators like sp_generate via the explicit multi-screen scope and the example (login → dashboard → settings). The title 'Generate Multi-Screen Flow' reinforces this, and the sibling list confirms separate tools for single screens or lists.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for multi-screen flows, but does not specify when to choose sp_flow over sp_generate, sp_screen, or others. No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings is provided, leaving the agent to infer without clear direction.

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