ui

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

Annotations are present but the description adds little behavioral insight. It does not disclose which actions are destructive (e.g., create_control) vs non-destructive (list_controls), nor does it explain prerequisites or failure modes. The action list alone is insufficient.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the action list. However, the structure could be improved (e.g., bullet points for actions), and the reference to 'help' adds moderate utility.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and 4 actions, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but is unused), prerequisites, or error handling. The tool is moderately complex, yet the description leaves significant gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding 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 states 'UI Control nodes and themes' and lists four actions, giving a general sense of the tool's scope. However, it lacks a unified statement of purpose and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes' or 'scenes', making it adequate but not clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'nodes' or 'scenes'. The description merely suggests using the 'help' tool for full documentation, offering no context for selection.

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