Plan UI states for a surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details about the output (states, triggers, must-show/must-not, accessibility, motion, implementation order) and that it covers non-happy-path, providing sufficient context beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details (surface types, output components, non-happy-path). It is efficient and easy to parse, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

With 7 parameters, low schema coverage (29%), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter purposes or return value structure, which is needed for a planning tool with many parameters.

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 only 29%, with only surfaceId and styleId having descriptions. The description aligns with surfaceId by listing surfaces, but does not explain other parameters like domainSignals, productContext, criticalOnly, or includeCategories, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool plans UI states for a specific set of surfaces, listing what it returns (required/recommended/domain-specific states, triggers, guidance, implementation order) and explicitly mentions covering non-happy-path, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on design directions or principles.

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 usage when planning UI states for surfaces like data-table, form, etc., and emphasizes non-happy-path, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like recommend_design_direction or get_design_principle_plan.

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