tempo_generate_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the artifact set the tool emits, but says nothing about determinism, whether repeated calls are stable, or side effects. For a pure generation tool the risk is low, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second line singling out only density is slightly unbalanced against the five-parameter surface, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The description covers the output artifacts, which matters since there is no output schema. However, the nested preferences object and the other enum parameters are left entirely to the schema, and no guidance ties the tool to its many generate-* siblings, so the definition is adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by expanding 'balanced' into 'the default' and giving intuitive glosses ('dense UIs', 'generous whitespace') for the density enum, but it ignores the other four parameters and the nested preferences object.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('a spacing system'), then enumerates the concrete outputs: base unit, spacing scale, semantic spacing, and layout measures. This distinguishes it from most siblings, though it never names the closest alternatives (cadence_generate_grid, bridge_generate_theme) that might also touch spacing.

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 phrase 'tuned to the type' hints that type_style drives the result, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from siblings. The density line explains an option rather than saying when to pick this tool.

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