hig_swiftui

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: stable APIs are confident, Liquid-Glass-era modifiers are flagged verify:true, and names shift between betas requiring confirmation. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, not a repetition of 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a brief but important stability caveat, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, return key names, and verification caveats. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema contains some description for the component field, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage at the top level. The tool description compensates by listing concrete accepted values (button, navigation_bar, tab_bar, list, sheet) and explicitly stating the omit-to-list-all behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a HIG component to its SwiftUI API plus the token references to apply.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by targeting the component-to-SwiftUI mapping and mentions the verify flags tied to Liquid-Glass modifiers.

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 direct usage context: the accepted component values and the 'omit to list all' behavior. It also points to hig_fetch as a verification alternative for unstable APIs, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with hig_get_tokens or hig_check_liquid_glass.

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