convert-autolayout

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'convert', which is a generic action. It does not disclose whether the conversion is a pure transformation, if it modifies code in place, or any performance or permission implications. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is highly concise. However, it may be too brief to convey all necessary context. Front-loading is not needed but structure is flat.

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 (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain input constraints, output format, or edge cases. The agent would have limited understanding of how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (swiftCode and options) but no descriptions within the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of parameters like 'options' and its subfields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Convert Auto Layout code to FrameLayoutKit syntax', specifying the action, input, and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like generate-framelayout (generates new code) and validate-framelayout (validation).

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?

Usage is implied but not explicit. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate-framelayout or generate-migration-guide. No contextual guidance on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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