generate_swiftui_theme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates files but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., creates new files, overwrites existing ones, returns content as string). It mentions Liquid Glass support but doesn't explain what that entails or any iOS version constraints. No information about error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs is provided.

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 (one sentence) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the optional feature. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand 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 (generating theme files is a non-trivial operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (file paths, format, content structure), error conditions, or how it integrates with the sibling tools that extract tokens. For a code generation tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'optional Liquid Glass support' which corresponds to the 'liquidGlass' parameter, but provides no additional context about what Liquid Glass is or when to use it. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Generate SwiftUI theme files from universal design tokens' specifies both the verb (generate) and resource (SwiftUI theme files). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SwiftUI output rather than CSS, Material3, Tailwind, or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'generate_css_variables' vs 'generate_swiftui_theme').

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 'optional Liquid Glass support' but doesn't explain when to enable it or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'generate_css_variables' or 'generate_material3_theme'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing design tokens first) or typical workflows.

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