ui

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

Annotations are sparse (no readOnly, destructive, idempotent, or openWorld hints). The description only mentions actions without explaining side effects, required permissions, or what happens during creation/theme changes. Given the lack of annotation support, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose and actions. However, the reference to the 'help' tool for full docs reduces self-sufficiency and could be replaced with inline guidance.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of each action, return values, or prerequisites. Reliance on the 'help' tool for full details indicates a lack of self-contained completeness.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond listing actions; it neither clarifies parameter usage nor provides examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool deals with UI Control nodes and themes and lists specific actions (create_control, set_theme, layout, list_controls), which clarifies the tool's scope and verb. However, the name 'ui' is broad and the description does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'nodes' or 'scenes', limiting clarity slightly.

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 versus alternatives. The description advises using the 'help' tool for full documentation, but does not give context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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