generate_type_scale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the scale is fluid across explicit viewport endpoints, implying interpolated clamp-style output between min/max viewports, but says nothing about output format or determinism beyond the annotation.

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 no filler; the core action and its main constraint come first. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter tool, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 6 unlabeled parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing behavior, the description should clarify what is produced (CSS custom properties, clamp expressions, a token set) and how the viewport endpoints interact. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for a moderately complex generator.

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 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails: only 'viewport endpoints' loosely points at minViewport/maxViewport, and 'modular type scale' hints at ratio/steps. basePx and desktopMultiplier are left entirely unexplained, and no defaults, ranges, or units are mentioned.

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 (calculate) and resource (modular type scale + fluid CSS), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling generate_spacing_scale and generate_palette. The phrase 'across explicit viewport endpoints' scopes it further, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus generate_spacing_scale, get_design_tokens, or get_design_system, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.

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