phonebook

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 explicitly states 'Read-only — it reports the gaps, it does not write previews,' and clarifies that the entire project is scanned even when filters are applied, ensuring the answers stay correct. This is honest and thorough for a read-only tool.

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, dense paragraph but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, behavioral safety, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main objective, and the filtering instructions are kept concise. Slightly long but no waste.

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 read-only tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is analyzed, what is reported, and how filters behave. It does not specify the exact return format, but that is a minor gap given the clarity of the rest. The tool is fully callable correctly from the description alone.

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 adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains that paths restrict reporting but not scanning, that changed is ignored outside a git repo, and that both combine when given together. This clarifies edge cases and adds meaning to each parameter.

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 ('Scan'), resource ('codebase'), and a precise objective: report what each UI component is missing in preview coverage (states, environment objects, dark theme, large text, localization). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_preview_guidance (which presumably offers guidance) and run_build/run_generate/check_setup (which are operational, not analytical).

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 explains when to use the changed and paths parameters ('After editing, pass changed: true (or paths) to hear only about what you touched'), and notes that the whole project is always scanned regardless. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_preview_guidance, but the analytical vs. guidance nature is implied, and the filtering usage is well covered.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose crash handling (keeps what rendered, reports failures by file and line) and the bundle output, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits like side effects, idempotency, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds crash behavior and usage tips. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clean.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify return values and side effects. It mentions the bundle output but does not specify what the tool returns to the agent. It also does not state prerequisites like the config file beyond the dir parameter, leaving completeness gaps.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. It mentions passing files or changed but does not elaborate on their semantics beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 runs the platform engine to render previews and produce a bundle, referencing 'phonebook generate' for familiarity. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like run_build, but the core action is unambiguous and specific.

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?

It provides clear guidance on using the files and changed parameters to limit rendering to specific files for a faster iteration loop. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over siblings or any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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