generate_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing manifest.json, rendering all screens with a shared sidebar, and sequential GPU rendering with time cost. This covers key non-obvious behavior, though it does not detail overwrite behavior or error handling. The disclosure is strong for the absence of annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mode options and behavioral constraints. No filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (8 parameters, arrays, enums) and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, output artifact (manifest), shared sidebar behavior, and performance caveat. It does not enumerate all parameters or explain return format, but the essential usage context is present. Missing details like overwrite policy are minor for a generation tool.

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 63%, and the description clarifies the relationship between the two most important parameters: screens and idea, explaining that they are alternative ways to specify the content. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which already has descriptions for several parameters. It does not elaborate on aesthetic parameters like theme/accent/palette, but those are likely self-explanatory.

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 the verb 'turn' with a specific resource: a product idea into screen mockups. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling render_screen by describing a set of mockups generated from an idea or explicit screens. The purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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 guidance on two usage modes: pass screens explicitly or let the planner derive them from idea, with a conditional on planner configuration. It also warns about sequential rendering time, setting expectations for when to use. However, it does not directly compare with render_screen, relying on the tool name to imply single-screen vs multi-screen usage, so it loses one point.

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