generate_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful traits: output is 'production-ready' and token-aware ('uses active design tokens if loaded'). It does not explain side effects (does it write files?), what auto_audit actually does at runtime, or auth/permission needs.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the token dependency is stated second as a qualifier.

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?

For a 9-parameter generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description is merely adequate. It never describes what the tool returns (code snippet, file path?) or how include_tests/auto_audit manifest, leaving those to the schema alone.

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 all nine parameters are already documented by the schema, including enums and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the framework list, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (UI component) and enumerates the supported frameworks, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not name or contrast against siblings like generate_story or compose_layout, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the generation verb, and the phrase 'Uses active design tokens if loaded' hints at a precondition (run import_design_tokens first). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no exclusion conditions.

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