ui_to_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals behavioral limitations (unsuitable for text/code extraction, error messages, etc.) and conveys the core transformation behavior. It stops short of detailing output formats, failure modes, or prerequisites, but the provided context is largely sufficient.

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-organized into a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of use cases, and an explicit exclusion list. While slightly longer than the minimal viable, every section contributes to effective instruction without redundancy.

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 description, combined with the fully described input schema, covers the tool's purpose, valid output types, specific use cases, and content exclusions. The absence of an output schema is offset by the schema's enum descriptions, making the overall description complete enough for an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's bullet list largely mirrors the output_type enum values already documented in the schema, adding little new parameter-level meaning. No additional detail is given for image_source or prompt beyond their schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function: converting UI screenshots into code, prompts, specs, or descriptions. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing excluded content types like text/code extraction, error messages, diagrams, and data visualizations, which correspond to other tools' scopes.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios for each output_type and lists concrete 'Do NOT use' cases (screenshots with extractable text/code, error messages, diagrams, data visualizations), making tool selection unambiguous for the agent.

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