screenshot_onboarding_heroes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the legacy/opt-in nature of the tool. However, it says nothing about the external 'fal' generator being invoked, whether it makes network/costly calls, required credentials, or side effects of writing hero assets. The allow_external_generator parameter hints at external generation but this is never explained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'LEGACY, OPT-IN ONLY' warning so the most decision-relevant caveat comes first. Efficient, with only mild redundancy between the opening label and the closing 'legacy' clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given that, the routing purpose is covered, but with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves behavioral and parameter gaps an agent would need to call it 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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The 'onb_step0..N' phrasing loosely maps to the count default of 11 steps, but app_dir, concept, and allow_external_generator are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific resource (hero images per onboarding step, onb_step0..N) and implies generation via 'fal hero images'. It distinguishes itself from the design_* sibling tools by noting that onboarding visuals normally come from Claude Design. The verb is somewhat implicit ('fal hero images' rather than 'generate'), keeping it just below a crisp 5.

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?

Explicitly sets scope with 'LEGACY, OPT-IN ONLY' and 'use this only for a legacy hero-image onboarding', while naming the preferred alternative (onboarding visuals are designed in Claude Design via design/screens.json boards). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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