Returns Japanese web design specs from a brief: industry, tone, site structure, design rules, copy, legal blocks, form specs, and JSX. Call this tool first for Japan-facing sites.
日本語ブリーフから業界・トーン・マクロ・参照サイト構造・DESIGN.md・UIルール・コピー・法令・フォーム・オリジナルJSXを一括で返します。最初にこのツールを呼んでください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | 日本語のデザインブリーフ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns many components in one batch, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention any limitations, errors, or side effects. The behavior is likely read-only and purely generative, but that is left implicit.
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: one sentence listing the complete output scope and one imperative sentence with usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important behavioral instruction ('call this first') is placed at the end for emphasis without padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the ten major output categories, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It could clarify the structure or nesting of results, but the bundle-style behavior and input are adequately covered.
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 input schema already fully documents the single 'brief' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds that the brief is Japanese but does not specify length, format, or required contents beyond what the schema implies. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb ('返します') with a clear resource (日本語ブリーフ) and enumerates a detailed list of outputs, including industry, tone, UI rules, legal, forms, and JSX. It also tells the agent to call this tool first, which distinguishes it from the more specialized sibling tools.
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 phrase '最初にこのツールを呼んでください' explicitly signals this tool is the entry point and should be invoked before other tools. It does not mention when to use alternatives, but the first-call guidance provides clear practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.