ux_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output (design spec + HTML wireframes, lo-fi and hi-fi), the basis for generation (ICP, competitor gaps, design trends), and the file system side effect ('Saves to rc-method/design/'). It does not describe the return format or potential overwrites, but it is reasonably transparent for a generation tool.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, describing the output and context, and providing parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with 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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the essential context: what the tool produces, the filesystem destination, the phase in which it should be called, and the parameter choices. It lacks details about the return value and error conditions, but for a design-generation tool that saves files, the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 value by explaining the practical use of option_count ('budget-conscious' vs 'full comparison'), which goes beyond the schema's simple description. It also ties the inspiration parameter to 'design references' implicitly through the mention of design trends. This is meaningful extra guidance.

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 ('Generate') with a concrete resource ('visual design options with HTML wireframes'), and clearly states what it produces: 1 or 3 design options including design specs and lo-fi/hi-fi wireframes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the output format (HTML wireframes) and the phase context (after PRD creation).

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('Call after PRD is created (Phase 2+)') and provides conditional usage advice for the option_count parameter ('Pass option_count=1 for budget-conscious, option_count=3 for full comparison'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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