ui_design_system

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, meaning the tool doesn't change state and produces consistent results. The description aligns with this by describing generation of a design direction without side effects. It adds value by detailing what the tool outputs (e.g., 'explicit disallowed items'), which goes beyond annotation hints. No contradiction.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core distinction and lists all output deliverables. Every phrase is meaningful, and there is no redundancy. It efficiently uses 50 characters to set context and then specifies outcomes.

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 high parameter schema coverage (100%) and annotations, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by briefly mentioning the return format or what '截图验收标准' entails, but the core directive is clear. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description listing concrete deliverables.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by emphasizing that output is executable, not just style tags. While most parameters have thorough schema descriptions, the tool description adds a strategic layer that clarifies purpose, compensating for the lack of extra parameter details in the tool description itself. The description effectively frames all 12 parameters.

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 generates executable visual direction, distinguishing it from a 'collage of style tags'. It lists specific outputs: core tasks, information architecture, content density, typography, color strategy, component principles, explicit disallowed items, and screenshot acceptance criteria. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'ui_search' (searching) and 'start_ui' (a different UI task).

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 implicitly sets context by contrasting with 'style tag collages', suggesting when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_ui' or 'converge'. The sibling list is diverse, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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