Generate Shadow System

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable output details: 5 elevation levels, CSS box-shadow values, usage guidance, and CSS custom properties. It also lists supported visual styles and defaults, giving the agent a clear picture of what the tool produces without contradicting annotations.

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 organized with an opening statement, Args/Returns/Examples sections, and examples. While it is longer than necessary and duplicates some schema information, it remains readable and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description fills the gap by specifying the return contents (elevation levels, CSS values, usage guidance, custom properties). It also provides examples of style usage. Given the tool's simple, read-only nature, this is sufficient context for an 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, including enums and defaults. The description repeats these details and adds examples, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' with the resource 'cohesive elevation shadow system with multiple depth levels,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ui_generate_color_palette or ui_suggest_typography. The focus on shadow elevation and depth makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for use—when a design needs a shadow system with selectable styles—and includes examples for 'subtle' and 'sharp' styles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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