design_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of Gemini 3 Pro, output format (HTML with TailwindCSS), and return fields including design_notes. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the tool is idempotent.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and return value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, and behavior. It explains the return dictionary with six fields, making it complete for an agent to use.

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 description includes a full 'Args:' section with detailed explanations, default values, and examples for all eight parameters. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Design a full page layout using Gemini 3 Pro' and lists nine specific template types, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'design_section' by focusing on complete pages.

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 provides detailed guidance on when to use the tool, including a list of template types and example configurations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific cases, which would improve guidance.

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