build_wireframe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output types (JSON, markdown) and mentions an ASCII sketch, but does not explain side effects, file creation behavior, or whether it overwrites existing files. The description adds value beyond the schema (which only has a run_id), so it's not insufficient, but could be more detailed.

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, concise sentence that conveys key information. It is front-loaded with the primary output (files) and a notable feature (ASCII sketch). No unnecessary words.

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 tool has one simple parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main output artifacts and a distinctive feature. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output format, though more detail on parameter usage would improve it.

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. The description does not mention the 'run_id' parameter or its role. However, the schema itself is simple (one string parameter), and the description implies that the tool operates on a specific run via the context. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's simplicity, but the description adds no parameter details.

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 it builds 'wireframe.json and .md, including an ASCII dashboard sketch.' This clearly identifies the action (build) and the output artifacts (JSON and markdown files) with a specific feature (ASCII sketch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_layout_json' or 'finalize_wireframe' by mentioning the sketch, though not explicitly contrasting.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use 'build_wireframe' versus 'generate_layout_json' or 'finalize_wireframe'. No context about prerequisites, required prior steps, or exclusions is provided.

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