generate_style_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and limitations. It only says it 'generates' and 'creates' a visual reference, which implies a non-destructive read-like operation, but does not state whether it modifies the source design, requires specific permissions, or returns any artifact. The lack of an output schema compounds this gap. It offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of content categories. No filler or redundancy. Each sentence earns its place.

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 generation tool that presumably produces a sizable artifact, the description is thin. It does not explain the output format (though 'format' parameter exists), what the generated style guide includes beyond the generic list, or any constraints on the input design. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks critical details to know what the tool will return or how to interpret success. This is incomplete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only a conceptual summary (colors, typography, etc.) that roughly maps to the 'sections' parameter but doesn't explain parameter interplay or defaults beyond what the schema states. It slightly misleads by implying 'usage guidelines' is a default when the default sections are actually colors, typography, spacing, and components. This is a net-zero addition over the schema.

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 clear verb ('generates') and resource ('style guide / design documentation screen'), and enumerates content categories (colors, typography, components, usage guidelines). This is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like generate_design_tokens or export_design_system.

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 the tool is used when a design already exists and a visual reference is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that the design must be in a certain state), and does not mention exclusions. The context signal of 'from an existing design' implicitly scopes it but leaves selection reasoning to the agent.

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