design_kotlin_ui

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the produced screen is expected to include: Unidirectional Data Flow, Material 3 theming, ViewModel state handling, and preview annotations. However, it does not say whether the tool writes files, returns code, or has side effects, which is important for a generative 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and resource and packs the key constraints into a compact list. There is no repetition of schema details and no filler, so the description is both concise and information-dense.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what invoking it actually returns or modifies. It omits whether the output is a code snippet, a file edit, or a design plan, and it does not state prerequisites such as an existing Compose project. Parameter coverage is strong, but the invocation outcome is under-specified.

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 four parameters. The description adds general architectural expectations but no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify how layoutDescription should be structured or how screenName affects the output, but the schema handles the basics.

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 action verb ('Designs') and clearly names the resource: production-ready Jetpack Compose / Compose Multiplatform UI screens. It also lists distinguishing architectural characteristics, making it distinct from sibling tools like screenshot tests or localization. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and constraints are unambiguous.

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 implies when the tool should be used: when a production-ready Compose UI screen is needed. However, it gives no explicit selection criteria, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as generate_compose_screenshot_tests. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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