Integration contract for a set of components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior in detail: it returns rule violations (hard vs warnings), measured budget dimensions, and an ordered init plan; also notes that every step cites evidence. This is transparent for a read-only analysis tool, though it omits potential side effects like authentication or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses an em-dash list to succinctly enumerate key outputs and plan order. No filler words; every clause adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (violations, warnings, budget, init plan) and even details plan order. However, the input side is incomplete: optional parameters motion_system and moving_sections are not explained, so the agent may not invoke the tool correctly with all parameters.

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 only 33% (only moving_sections has a description). The tool description explains 'slugs' (components for a page) but provides no meaning for 'motion_system' or 'moving_sections', leaving agents uncertain about how to fill these optional parameters. The Spanish description for moving_sections adds limited clarity.

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 a specific action (returns) and resource (integration contract) with a defined scope: given slugs for one page. It lists concrete outputs (violations, warnings, budget, init plan) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_component or suggest_mechanics.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Given the slugs you intend to put on ONE page' indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions but provides a clear situational trigger.

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