generate_page_layout

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses returns (ordered layout, install commands, dependency summary) and auto-detection behavior, but does not mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is well-structured with a summary, supported types list, examples, and parameter details. Some redundancy in examples could be trimmed, but overall efficient and 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?

Given the tool's complexity and output schema presence, the description covers inputs, auto-detection, and return value. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for vague descriptions. Near complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds full meaning to all four parameters: what they are, defaults, constraints (e.g., max for components_per_section), and auto-detection behavior for page_type. Fully compensates for schema gap.

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 generates a complete page layout with component recommendations, listing supported page types and giving examples. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on individual components or cache stats.

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 when to use (to generate a layout), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives (e.g., recommend_components for component-only tasks). Usage is inferred but not fully guided.

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