enable_webasyst_ui

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a setup or configuration action ('Подключить'), suggesting potential system changes, but doesn't specify if this is destructive, requires permissions, affects existing files, or has side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. For a setup tool with multiple inputs, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'project_type' entails, what 'target_path' expects, or the purpose of boolean flags like 'include_icons'. With 5 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Подключить' meaning 'Connect/enable') and the resource ('дизайн-систему Webasyst UI 2.0' meaning 'Webasyst UI 2.0 design system'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_ui_component' or 'validate_ui_usage', which could involve similar UI-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during project setup or UI enhancement), or compare to siblings like 'create_theme' or 'generate_color_scheme'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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