build_ui_frontend_on_aptos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'returns all resources from frontend directory,' hinting at output behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'resources' entail (e.g., files, data). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 purpose and followed by usage guidance, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific in the first sentence to enhance clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but lacks depth. It states the purpose and usage but misses details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'returns all resources' means, any side effects). For a tool with no annotations or output schema, it should provide more context about the return value and operational constraints to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter info, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 the tool 'Build a UI frontend for Aptos dApp' which provides a clear verb ('Build') and resource ('UI frontend for Aptos dApp'), but it's vague about what 'Build' entails—whether it generates code, provides instructions, or something else. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'build_dapp_on_aptos' or 'build_smart_contract_on_aptos', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 'Use this tool when you need guidance on how to build a frontend for a dapp on Aptos,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'build_dapp_on_aptos' for broader dApp development, which could help differentiate usage scenarios.

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