Generate Spacing Scale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the return structure ('named steps (0 to 3xl), px/rem values, usage guidance, and CSS custom properties') and the meaning of the generation strategies. No contradictions with 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 compact and well-organized: a single-purpose sentence, a strategies sentence, an Args list, a Returns clause, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a stateless generation tool with no output schema, this description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters with defaults, return value description, and usage examples. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% but property descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Scale generation strategy'). The tool description expands on this by explaining each strategy ('linear (equal steps), geometric (exponential growth), and fibonacci (golden ratio progression)') and providing example parameter combinations, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a consistent spacing scale for layout and component spacing.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generators like type scale or color palette, and the mention of multiple strategies further solidifies its scope.

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 on when to use the tool (for layout and component spacing) and gives examples for different strategies ('8px geometric scale (most common)', '4px fibonacci scale for fine control'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/why-not guidance.

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