generate_mfe_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputs (lifecycle hooks, registry entry) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions beyond the token parameter, whether files are written, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a code generation tool.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key features. Slightly long but still concise and structured effectively.

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?

Despite having parameters and a detailed purpose, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain what happens after generation (e.g., output format, file creation), nor does it provide guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations further reduces the agent's ability to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so each parameter has a clear definition. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or usage nuances beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific artifact ('self-contained micro-frontend module from a Figma node'), with additional detail about lifecycle hooks and widget registry entry. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_react_component, which would not include these MFE-specific features.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for generating micro-frontend modules, but does not contrast with the sibling generate_react_component, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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