generate_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns rules, project structure, patterns, snippets...') but does not address side effects, prerequisites, or whether it persists any changes. The ambiguity between 'Generate' and 'Returns' could confuse agents.

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 redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then summarizes return content, and finally lists the arguments. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, key features, input parameters, and return content. It does not detail the output schema, but that is presumably captured in the schema itself.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: description ('What the page should contain and do') and page_name ('camelCase name for the page (used in route map)'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 a specific action: 'Generate a Symbols.app DOMQL page' and elaborates with routing, helmet metadata, and fetch integration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_component, which target components.

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 the tool is for page generation but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context—'page' with routing, helmet, and fetch—but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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