aura_design_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: free-only enforcement, failures marked unavailable, and a no-copy policy for third-party source. However it says nothing about determinism, error surfacing beyond 'unavailable', or how the versioned JSON is versioned, leaving meaningful behavioral 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?

It is a single front-loaded, telegraphic sentence that avoids filler, which is good, but the densely compressed style ('from 2-5 award refs + goal', 'free-only enforced') forces the reader to decode rather than read cleanly. Efficient but at the cost of parseability.

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?

This is a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description names the two output artifacts (Markdown brief, versioned JSON), which helps, but it is not sufficient to call the tool correctly given five undocumented optional 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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it constrains references to 2-5 award refs and identifies goal. The other five parameters (responsive, technology, constraints, visualDirection, includeStructure) and the fact that references are strings are left entirely undefined.

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 names a specific deliverable: an 'Evidence-backed build plan' that outputs a 'Markdown brief + versioned JSON' mapped to real free Aura components. This is concrete verb+resource phrasing that lets an agent understand the output shape. It doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like aura_docs_plan or aura_bundle, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aura_docs_plan, aura_scaffold_page, or aura_bundle, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'from 2-5 award refs + goal' phrasing hints at the input situation but is really a parameter constraint, not usage context.

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