Paginile de pornire ale unui site nou

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

Annotations already flag read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Nu creează nimic'. It adds non-obvious behavior: output is incomplete templates with [[COMPLETEAZĂ]] placeholders, meant to be saved as drafts and approved, plus specific privacy-page content (GA4, Cloudflare, video).

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 sentences front-load the resource and composition before adding workflow and privacy context. No redundant or filler content; each sentence adds distinct information.

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 parameterless, read-only template-provider, this is complete: it names the included pages, the placeholder format, the save/approve workflow, and the special content of the privacy page. No critical call-time information is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so the schema already fully covers the input surface. The description's mention of placeholders refers to content in the tool's output, not to call parameters, so no additional semantic burden exists.

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 identifies a specific resource—skeleton templates for home, about, services, contact, and privacy pages—and immediately distinguishes it from mutation tools by stating 'Nu creează nimic'. This clearly separates it from siblings like publica or sterge.

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 gives an explicit workflow: fill the placeholders from user input, save as drafts using the sibling salveaza, then have the human approve. It also tells the agent when not to expect creation and names the save tool directly.

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