ux_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output file location (rc-method/prds/), the list of generated artifacts, and downstream usage. However, it does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing files or requires the main PRD to already exist, which is a minor transparency gap for a file-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 dense but each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, when to use it, what it produces, where it saves, what input to pass, and downstream usage. There is no redundant content; every sentence adds essential context, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the generated artifacts, file location, input requirements, and how the output integrates with subsequent phases and tools. It is complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's role and execute 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by restating 'Pass descriptions of the screens and user flows,' which closely mirrors the screens_description schema description. It does not introduce new syntax, format, or parameter-specific constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool generates a UX child PRD with a specific filename pattern (PRD-[project]-ux.md), enumerates the artifacts it produces (screen inventory, state contracts, etc.), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing ux_score and its downstream consumers.

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?

It explicitly specifies when to call the tool: during Phase 2 (Define) and only when ux_score returns selective or deep_dive_mode. It also mentions prerequisites (passing descriptions of screens and flows) and provides context on how the output is consumed later (rc_validate, rc_forge_task), clearly indicating the tool's role in the overall workflow.

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