layout.generate_code

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with that. However, the description does not add additional behavioral context such as whether code is persisted or just returned, authentication needs, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value. Efficient and clear.

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 main purpose and parameters. However, it omits the output format (no output schema) and does not explain how to obtain patternId (referring to sibling tools). Given schema richness and nested complexity, more context would improve completeness, but it's adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates some parameter options (framework, typescript, tailwind) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Nested options and their interrelations are not elaborated.

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 tool's action ('generate code'), the input ('section patterns' via patternId), and the output frameworks (React, Vue, etc.). It uniquely positions the tool among siblings by focusing on code generation, not ingestion or inspection.

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 implicitly indicates usage for generating code from patterns, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., layout.search for finding patterns). No 'when not to use' or context for selection among siblings.

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