start_ui

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

The description discloses that the tool generates code and templates, which implies mutation of files, contradicting the annotation `readOnlyHint: true`. This contradiction reduces trust, hence a score of 1 per rule.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then enumerate the steps. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview of the workflow but lacks details on return values or how to interpret results. It is functional but not fully complete.

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% with descriptive parameter names and schema descriptions. The main description does not add detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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's purpose as an all-in-one UI development orchestrator that automates the entire process from design system checking to code rendering. It uses specific verbs ('检查', '生成', '搜索/生成', '渲染') and distinguishes from siblings like ui_design_system and ui_search by positioning itself as an integrated solution.

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 indicates suitability for rapid prototyping and ensuring style consistency, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like start_feature or ui_search. Usage context is implied but lacks direct comparison or exclusions.

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