Generate Landing Page

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is an inline preview with responsive viewport controls, that the HTML has no external dependencies, and it includes a recommended timeout of 300000 ms. It doesn't cover side effects of saving a file or model differences, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 only three sentences plus a timeout metadata tag. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, preview behavior, and the no-dependency constraint. It is front-loaded with the core action. The timeout metadata feels slightly out-of-place but is useful for the agent.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the most critical context: an HTML landing page is generated, a preview is returned, and no external dependencies are used. The inline preview covers the return behavior. It does not explain what outputPath does in detail, but the schema covers that parameter. Overall it is sufficiently complete for the agent to invoke successfully.

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?

The schema already describes 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to add much parameter-level detail. The parameter descriptions cover meanings and defaults. The tool description itself doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 tool generates a complete, self-contained HTML landing page via Gemini. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image, generate_svg, and generate_video. The addition of inline preview and responsive viewport controls further clarifies the output format.

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 clear context: use this to create a self-contained HTML landing page and preview it in the IDE. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose this over sibling generation tools. The dependency-free constraint also helps narrow expectations.

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