generate_responsive_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully signals that output is "original" (generated rather than templated) and container-responsive (container queries, not media queries), but says nothing about return format, determinism across differing inputs, or whether CSS is returned as text or written to a file.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is tight, though the terseness is partly the reason parameter and usage guidance are absent.

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?

With no output schema and four undocumented parameters, the description should carry the burden of explaining what is returned and how inputs affect it; it does neither. For a generator tool in a crowded design-tool suite, this leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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% and none of the four parameters (gapPx, className, maxWidthPx, minColumnPx) is mentioned in the description. Defaults and min/max bounds exist in the schema, but an agent gets no explanation of how these values shape the generated layout, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("container-responsive CSS") scoped to an editorial hero and content grid, which separates it from planning-oriented siblings like plan_responsive_crop or generate_scroll_scaffold. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 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?

The sentence describes the artifact produced but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing against siblings such as generate_scroll_scaffold or get_design_tokens. An agent must infer that this is the CSS-generation step rather than being told.

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