Suggest Responsive Breakpoints

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context such as parameter defaults, supported strategies (mobile-first vs desktop-first), and the return format, which goes beyond the structured 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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to scan. It does repeat default values already present in the schema, but the examples and explanatory detail justify the length. It is efficient without being overly verbose.

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 three optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (breakpoint definitions, container max-widths, usage guidance, CSS media queries) and provides usage examples. It is complete for a read-only generation tool, though it could mention error or edge cases.

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 all three parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining what 'mobile_first' means (min-width) and 'desktop_first' (max-width), plus providing concrete example combinations, which enhances the schema's brief descriptions.

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 function: 'Generate a responsive breakpoint system with named breakpoints, container max-widths, and CSS media queries.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like color palette or typography generation.

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 by listing supported frameworks, strategies, and examples, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Given the sibling tool list, it is obvious this is for breakpoints, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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