Get a Jig for Parameter Work

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema behavior: what artifact each kind returns, licensing (MIT) and install characteristics (DialKit 'no re-render lag'), that the variant canvas is added as a development-only route in next/vite apps, and that the user copies tuned values back as JSON. Missing detail is minor since this is a pure generator with no 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?

It is long and dense, but front-loaded with the definition and then structurally split one paragraph per kind, so an agent can stop reading once its case is matched. A few clause clusters (the list of taste-based value examples) are heavy, but they carry real routing value rather than filler.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return artifact for every kind: a control panel to wire to parameters, the Toolcraft starter kit with canvas/export/layers/timeline, and a pan-and-zoom variant canvas with self-score, per-frame tuning, compare and keep-with-a-note. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and explain the result to a user is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the enum text by spelling out the trade-off between kinds and by adding guidance not present in the schema at all ('Tuning setups: React recommends DialKit... vanilla and react-native get dependency-free scaffolds'). The `context` parameter's analytics-only nature is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the setup for a "jig"') and defines the term immediately with an analogy, so an agent knows what it gets. It also splits the resource into three named kinds with distinct payloads. It does not name any sibling (get-widget-guide, get-motion-guide, get-ui-principle) to disambiguate, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives explicit selection criteria for each of the three kinds with concrete triggers ('when you are about to hard-code taste-based values in UI you are building', 'when the user wants a reusable custom tool instead', 'when the user should compare several versions... before one is built'). It also states the framework-level branching for React vs vanilla vs react-native. No inference is required.

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