Write a screen

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses that the input is linted, nothing is saved on failure, and on success the screen is saved and live-rendered. Missing details about overwrite behavior or authentication, but sufficiently transparent for an agent.

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?

Two sentences, each packed with information: action, linting, conditional save, failure behavior. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return on failure ('violations are returned') but omits success response details. Sibling list provides context. Missing those details slightly reduces completeness; still highly usable.

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 high (75%), so the tool description adds little per-parameter detail beyond the linting context. The description reinforces that 'html' must conform to the token contract, but the schema already says that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (submit/write), resource (screen's HTML), and outcome (saved if passes lint, returned violations if fails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pixl_lint_screen by showing this tool performs conditional save.

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 explains the linting step and the condition for saving, giving clear context for use. It implies when to use (when ready to save after ensuring lint passes) but does not explicitly exclude using lint-only tool first.

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