finalize_wireframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, the description only states a high-level purpose and does not mention effects such as whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has side effects. It does not disclose what happens to the wireframe or notes after finalization. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short (one clause), which could be seen as concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey sufficient information. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity but with significant gaps.

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 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema description in the input, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or how the parameters relate to the finalization process. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the provided description.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameter semantics. However, the description does not describe any of the three parameters (run_id, user_answers_json, markdown_path) or their roles. Without this, the agent cannot understand what values to provide or how they affect the tool's operation.

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 says 'Finalize wireframe review notes or normalized actions before planning.' This gives a general sense of the tool's purpose: it finalizes something related to wireframe review. However, it does not clearly specify the verb-resource relationship; 'finalize' is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like 'build_wireframe' or 'build_analysis_brief'. It lacks specificity about what exactly is being finalized and how it differs from other finalization tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'before planning' but does not explain what conditions warrant its use, nor does it reference any sibling tools. Without any when/when-not guidance or mentions of alternatives, the agent has little context for appropriate invocation.

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