UI 截图转代码/规格

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the conversion action without disclosing any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond the input schema. This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 that is direct and efficient. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 an output schema and 7 parameters, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to combine parameters, what the output format is (though schema exists), or any advanced usage. A more complete description would aid understanding.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'convert' is implicit in the target parameter). It does not compensate with additional parameter context.

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 clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'UI screenshot/design draft into runnable code or structured specifications'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'image_analysis' or 'diagnose_error_screenshot' which have different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'When the host has a UI image and needs to generate or restore frontend implementation', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or offer alternatives, slightly reducing the score.

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