recommend_ui_systems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the output range (3-7), the influence of project type/framework/preferences, and a deliberate bias toward hidden gems. It does not disclose edge cases, return value details, or authorization implications of preferences like 'allow-restricted', but it is not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence. It names the action, object, result count, and key inputs without filler, and the 'hidden gems' phrase earns its place by conveying the tool's differentiator.

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 is adequate for basic invocation: it implies the required projectType and the optional framework/preferences inputs, and the schema fills in the remaining parameter details. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what fields each recommendation will contain, nor does it explain behavior when no systems match or how noveltyPreference affects the result set.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions projectType, framework, preferences, and discovery options at a high level but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 states a specific action and object: 'Recommend 3-7 suitable UI design systems'. It also names the key inputs (project type, framework, developer preferences) and a distinctive discovery focus ('hidden gems rather than defaulting to mainstream choices'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like list_ui_systems and search_ui_systems.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs curated recommendations based on project type, framework, and preferences. However, it gives no explicit comparison to sibling tools, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no guidance on when to choose list_ui_systems or search_ui_systems instead.

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