Plan screens & journey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: 'Writes screens.md and seeds the flow map.' However, it does not specify whether these writes are overwrites, or if there are any destructive implications. Some behavioral traits are disclosed, but not comprehensively.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide workflow placement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted 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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, timing, and outputs. Minor gaps: it doesn't explain what 'seeds the flow map' means or prerequisites for the design system. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it says 'Record the screen list and the user journey between them,' which maps to the two parameters. No additional meaning or format details are provided that aren't already in the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Record the screen list and the user journey between them.' It names outputs (screens.md, flow map) and places the tool in a workflow relative to siblings (after design system, before generating screens). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pixl_set_flow or pixl_write_screen.

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 includes explicit timing: 'Do this after the design system is set and before generating screens.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list and context signals enable comparison.

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