create_showcase

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the behavioral note about relaying the `note` field once, but does not disclose write semantics, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., that inputs must be generated screenshots). Some transparency is provided, but gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or wasteful text.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, typical use, and a key behavioral instruction (note field). It lacks detail on return value structure beyond the note, but schema covers parameters well. Fairly complete for its 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying inputs are 'generated screenshots' and explaining the `note` field in the result. Schema descriptions are already detailed, so the description adds contextual use-case info, earning above 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 clearly states the tool 'composes a horizontal preview strip from generated screenshots' with specific use cases (READMEs, decks, social posts), which is a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like compose_screenshot (single screenshot) and generate_set (set generation).

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 provides context ('for READMEs, decks, and social posts') and mentions a note field to relay, implying post-compose use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compose_screenshot) or when not to use it.

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