plate_brief

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses deterministic template-based behavior, explicitly rules out image generation and visual analysis, and lists the output categories, giving the agent a solid understanding of what will and will not happen.

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?

Three tight sentences, each adding distinct value: the core action, the behavioral boundary, and the expected outputs. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description explains what the tool produces reasonably well given there is no output schema, but it leaves parameter semantics and selection criteria under-specified. It is adequate for a minimum viable call using only the required prompt, but weaker for correctly using optional fields like nouns and constraints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats parameter names (prompt, domain, style, constraints) without explaining their meaning, formats, or acceptable values. The 'nouns' parameter is not mentioned at all, and no guidance is given for constraints or the domain enum.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a structured design starting point' and explicitly states what it returns. It also distinguishes itself from image generation and visual analysis, which helps separate it from visually-oriented siblings.

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 phrase 'starting point' implies this tool is used early in the design workflow, and 'next tool calls' hints at follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly identify siblings as alternatives or state when this tool should be chosen over them.

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