ui_design_system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that it generates outputs (Markdown, JSON) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as reliance on AI inference or any limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then listing outputs. Every sentence provides value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 generative nature, 5 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers input requirements, optional parameters, and output types (Markdown, JSON, design spec docs). It is fairly complete but could mention the generation process or any constraints to achieve a perfect score.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining product_type as the core input for the inference engine and stack as generating tech-specific suggestions. This additional information helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 it is an intelligent design system generator that produces complete design system recommendations including UI styles, color schemes, and more. It uses specific verbs ('generate') and resources ('design system') and is distinct from sibling tools like ui_search or start_ui.

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 usage for generating design systems based on product type and requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.

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