phonebook

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, and it explicitly says 'Read-only,' which is the most critical safety trait for this tool. It does not mention potential runtime cost, config lookup behavior, or output shape, but the read-only guarantee is clearly and directly stated.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The main action and expected results are front-loaded, and 'Read-only' is appended as a concise safety qualifier without disrupting flow.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is scanned, what categories are reported, and that it is read-only. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit workflow hint relative to the sibling tools, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single dir parameter: it documents type, default, and the 'Project directory containing phonebook.config.json' expectation. The tool description adds no parameter detail, but because the schema already fully documents it, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Scan the codebase for UI components and the previews that cover them.' It also names specific outcomes—which components have previews and which states/themes are missing—so an agent can distinguish this analysis task from siblings like run_generate or check_setup.

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 read-only analysis intent is clear, and the wording implies it is useful for assessing preview coverage before generation. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer analyze_coverage over get_preview_guidance or how it fits relative to run_generate/run_build, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool performs checks, names the checks (libraries, test target, JDK/Xcode/simulator), and implies a read-only nature. However, it does not describe failure behavior, exit codes, output format, or whether the tool attempts any fixes, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one tight, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose, gives the equivalence to `phonebook doctor`, and lists the main checks without wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is checked and why. It could be slightly more complete by stating what a successful or failed check returns, but the current level is adequate for selection and invocation.

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?

The single parameter `dir` is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already handles it.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('project setup'), names the exact command it supports (`phonebook generate`), and enumerates the concrete checks performed. It clearly distinguishes itself from generation/build tools like `run_generate` and `run_build`.

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 clearly implies this is a precondition check for `phonebook generate`, and the reference to `phonebook doctor` provides an equivalence that helps the agent understand behavior. It does not explicitly state 'use before run_generate' or list when not to use it, so it falls just short of full explicit routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses a non-mutating return ('Return') and the output type (naming convention + template), but it does not describe output format, failure behavior, or prerequisites. For a simple getter this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the key deliverable is front-loaded before the outcome clause. Every phrase 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?

Only three parameters with 100% schema coverage reduce the burden on the description. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could usefully state how platform, states, and component are handled, or when this guidance should be fetched relative to run_generate and run_build. These are gaps but not fatal ones.

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 baseline for this dimension is 3. The description's 'for a component' aligns with the 'component' parameter but adds no value beyond the schema's documented parameters; nothing is said about how states or platform affect the returned template.

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 verb ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource ('preview naming convention plus a ready-to-paste preview code template'), with the desired outcome 'so any agent writes consistent previews.' It clearly separates itself from execution-oriented siblings like run_generate and run_build, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'so any agent writes consistent previews' implies this tool should be consulted before writing a preview, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. It lists no alternatives and no exclusion conditions, leaving agents to infer its place in the workflow.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core action; it does not disclose side effects such as writing into the bundle directory, overwriting output, or requirements. The output default noted in the schema is useful but outside the description, so the description itself carries too little behavioral burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the CLI-equivalent note is a compact way to anchor expected behavior. It is appropriately sized for a simple build command.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the inputs are adequately specified, but the missing usage routing and side-effect disclosure leave the agent to infer workflow and safety. With no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would make it complete.

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%, with both 'bundle' and 'output' documented, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema other than echoing 'bundle'.

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?

Description opens with an explicit verb ('Build') and resource ('static gallery site'), and identifies the input ('from a bundle'), which clearly separates it from the sibling generation/analysis/check tools. The CLI alias reinforces the exact operation without ambiguity.

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 'from a bundle' wording and the schema's 'produced by run_generate' hint imply a build-after-generate workflow, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like run_generate or analyze_coverage. No when-not or alternative conditions are stated.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and output but does not mention side effects (e.g., writing files to disk), prerequisites (e.g., a valid config file), or what the tool returns. For a generation tool that likely mutates the project directory, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and result, then adds the CLI reference. There is no fluff or redundancy. It could benefit from a second sentence about prerequisites, but it earns a high score for efficiency and clear focus.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover the essentials. It states what the tool does and references the CLI, but it omits return value details, potential side effects, and any environmental requirements. Since the tool is simple (one parameter), the definition is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that has never seen the CLI command.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (`dir`) with a clear description and default value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, such as path validation or behavior when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Run the platform engine') and the concrete outcome ('render all previews and produce a bundle (manifest + images)'). It also references the CLI equivalent (`phonebook generate`), which anchors its role. The intended output clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_build or analyze_coverage, even though no explicit comparison is made.

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 you need to generate previews and a bundle, but it does not state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives. The CLI equivalence gives a hint, but there is no explicit context about choosing this over run_build or other sibling tools. It falls at 'implied usage' rather than providing clear guidance.

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