generate_responsive_variant

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the entire disclosure burden. It says the tool 'creates' a variant, which implies non-destructive creation, but it does not state whether the source is preserved, whether design assets are regenerated, what outputs are returned, or any constraints on how the design language is maintained. A simple mutation/creation operation needs more behavioral detail when annotations disclose none.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and main outcome, with no filler. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose.

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 schema fully documents inputs, which helps a lot, and the description covers the core purpose. But there is no output schema, no annotations, and no clear differentiation from the overlapping sibling generate_variants. An agent would still have to guess at the practical result of invoking the tool.

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 100% and each parameter, including targetDevice and adaptationStrategy, is thoroughly described with enums and defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Creates a responsive variant of an existing screen for a different device type') and adds a distinguishing design-language constraint. It is not as explicit as naming alternatives like generate_variants, but the purpose is clearly separable from text-based generation and dark-mode 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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need a device-specific variant of an existing screen. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from plausible siblings such as generate_variants and generate_component_variants.

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