get_ui_compose_standards

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

The description uses 'Returns' to convey a read-only retrieval action and lists the content areas, providing a basic understanding of behavior. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose the output format or any caveats, which would be useful for a tool with no output schema.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with 'Returns' and lists the key domains. It is concise, free of unnecessary words, and well-structured, earning top marks.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about the return value. It names the content domains but does not describe the format or granularity of the returned standards, leaving some gaps. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics, and the empty schema aligns with the tool's straightforward action.

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 returns Compose screen structure, Material 3, Navigation, and Player UI standards. It uses a specific verb and identifies distinct resource areas, distinguishing it from siblings like get_project_structure and get_player_patterns, though there is some overlap with the latter.

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 implies usage when Compose UI standards are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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