generate_ui_fix_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core behavior of generating a prompt summary from a report, but it does not mention any side effects, output format, or limitations. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The key action and input are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complex nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the generated prompt summary looks like, how the report components map to the output, or how this tool relates to scan_website_ui.

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 refers to an 'existing optimization report' without explaining the meaning of url, summary, issues, or nested fields like severity and affectedArea. The agent is left to infer semantics from field names alone.

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 states a specific action (generate a concise Claude Code prompt summary) and a clear input source (an existing optimization report). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool scan_website_ui, but the word 'existing' helps distinguish it from a tool that creates the report.

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 the tool is meant for use after an optimization report already exists, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over scan_website_ui, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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