create_wireframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool generates an .excalidraw file and returns its absolute path, which is useful. However, it does not clarify default output behavior when output_path is omitted, whether existing files are overwritten, or any other file-system side effects.

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 a short summary, a component-type reference, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every part earns its place, and the key facts are front-loaded. The component list is somewhat long but directly useful because the schema does not enumerate the values.

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 creation tool with five parameters, the description covers most information needed to call it correctly: component types, device options, optional arguments, and the return value. The main gap is the lack of detail about default output_path behavior and theme options, which leaves minor ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does. It enumerates the component types, gives device frame values ('phone', 'tablet', 'desktop', 'none'), and clarifies which arguments are optional. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though theme values are still underspecified.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a wireframe UI mockup' and 'Generates a simple wireframe with common UI components.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling diagram/chart tools by focusing on UI mockups rather than flowcharts, architecture diagrams, or charts.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Great for quick screen mockups and UI planning.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the target use case is evident from the wireframe terminology and component list.

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