Generate application code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions exporting DesignIR and translating layout metadata to framework constructs, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the host is modified, how or where generated code is delivered, whether this is a read-only operation, or any output format.

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 sentences with no filler; the core generation behavior is front-loaded and the layout-mapping detail justifies itself. It loses a point because 'Export DesignIR from a host' is an extra operational detail that could be clarified or moved after the primary 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?

For a four-parameter code generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is underspecified. It does not explain how results are returned, whether files are written, what screenId means for scoped generation, or what happens when no screen is selected.

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 0%, and the description only partially compensates. It names supported framework targets and mentions 'from a host', which maps to target and host, but it says nothing about scope or screenId selection semantics, nor does it explain the relationship between screenId and scope.

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 action: generate a semantic starter implementation in named frameworks, with mapping details for layout metadata. It is distinguishable from sibling design.export_ir because it generates code, not just exports IR, though the opening 'Export DesignIR from a host' creates some overlap.

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 implies code generation use but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools such as design.export_ir or design.get_selection_context. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate rather than being told.

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