Fast First UI Pass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is a single call, performs 'lightweight' detection, optionally layers in FigCraft data, and trades off audit depth in fast mode. But it does not clarify side effects—whether it writes files, modifies the project, or is purely a planning/read operation—nor does it explain return shape.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and followed by the speed trade-off. No filler or repetition.

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 six-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities but leaves important gaps: it does not explain what the returned plan contains, whether the call has side effects, or how 'root' changes behavior. Adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces semantics for 'brief', 'speed', and the optional FigCraft inputs, but adds no new format, syntax, or constraint details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 function: a single-call planner that turns a brief into a first-render plan, listing the components it covers (project detection, FigCraft classification, typography, first screen scope, viewport checks). It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_ui_project or audit_ui_page.

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 this is a first-pass tool by noting that 'fast mode postpones exhaustive audits until after a usable preview,' which hints at sequencing relative to deeper audit tools. However, it never names an alternative or explicitly states when to choose this over inspect_ui_project, audit_ui_page, or review_ui.

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