screen_to_tailwind_config

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and does a solid job: 'Extracts' signals a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the enumeration of analyzed tokens plus the output artifact gives agents a concrete behavioral model. It doesn't mention potential side effects or failure conditions, but not much is hidden for a generation tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and output and then adds a compact list of analyzed design tokens. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description conveys purpose, input, output, and the scope of analysis, which is decent given the simple parameter set. However, without an output schema it stops short of specifying the exact return format (e.g., JSON string vs. code block) or any constraints on the generated config, leaving a notable gap for an agent to resolve.

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 documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra explanation of how 'prefix' alters generated classes or what 'includePlugins' recommends, so it does not push above the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Extracts'), a specific resource ('a complete tailwind.config.ts'), and the source ('a screen's design'), then lists the analyzed design tokens. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like screen_to_css_variables or generate_design_tokens, which target different outputs.

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 intended scenario—deriving a Tailwind config from a screen—but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over similar token-generation tools such as export_design_system or generate_design_tokens. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, leaving the choice to inference.

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