superdesign_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns design specifications' but doesn't clarify what that entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it creates new files, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Returns design specifications') and the scope ('for Claude Code to generate UI designs, wireframes, components, logos, or icons'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether this tool creates or modifies files, what the output format is, or how it interacts with siblings. For a design generation tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'prompt' should be formatted or the implications of 'design_type' choices). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Returns design specifications for Claude Code to generate UI designs, wireframes, components, logos, or icons.' It specifies the verb ('Returns design specifications') and the resource/scope (various design types). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like superdesign_iterate or superdesign_gallery, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from siblings such as superdesign_iterate (which might be for iterative design) or superdesign_gallery (which might list existing designs). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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