generate_responsive_tag

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the output (a <picture> element) but does not clarify side effects, such as whether any file is written, whether an external AuraImage service is called, or whether validation occurs. The relationship between inputs (projectName, name) and the 'AuraImage URL' is also unexplained, leaving the tool's behavior largely opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to understanding the core function. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool is moderately complex (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description is minimal. It does not specify what the generated 'element' looks like (e.g., is it a string?), how the AuraImage URL is derived, or what the return value is. The lack of an output schema further compounds this, leaving the overall behavior and input-output mapping under-specified.

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 25% (only 'name' has a description), so the tool description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not clarify how 'widths', 'alt', 'projectName', or 'name' map to the generated <picture> element, nor how the AuraImage URL is constructed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specifies the tool's action: generating a <picture> element with AVIF and WebP srcsets. It names the resource (AuraImage URL) and is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like generate_alt or smart_crop_preview, which focus on different aspects of image handling.

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 implies usage when a responsive <picture> element is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no direct reference to sibling tools, so guidance is only inferred.

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