generate_typography_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a calculation that returns data, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or whether it modifies any state. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence that covers the tool's purpose and output. While effective, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output details). No wasted words.

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 low complexity (3 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does and returns. It mentions the output includes line heights, which adds value beyond just the scale sizes.

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% and all parameters are well-described with defaults. The description adds context about output (recommended sizes and line heights) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'modular typography scale' with specific outcomes: recommended sizes for headings and body text, and complete type scale with line heights. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_color_palette or generate_wireframe which focus on different design aspects.

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 for generating typography scales but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_accessibility or suggest_microcopy. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is implicit.

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