Plumb · scan references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it streams live progress to Plumb Studio, uses the same structural pipeline as plumb_import_web, and returns data for reasoning without composing or building. These details go beyond annotations and provide a comprehensive behavioral picture with no contradictions.

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 paragraph that is information-dense but not overly verbose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, extraction details, streaming, usage guidance, contrast with sibling, and return behavior. Minor improvements could be made by breaking into shorter sentences, but overall it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns data for reasoning and folding into plumb_design DSL or plumb_studio brief, and specifies the type of extracted content (nav/hero/footer/card exemplars). This covers the output sufficiently. However, the exact structure or format of the digest is not detailed, preventing a perfect score.

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 only parameter 'references' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with min/max items and description. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond restating 'up to 8'. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is added here.

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 scans N live reference URLs and extracts a per-role STYLE DIGEST of concrete design elements. It distinguishes itself from sibling plumb_brand by clarifying it captures structural features, not just colors, and explicitly says it does not compose or build anything, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Use this BEFORE plumb_studio/plumb_design' when structural resemblance is desired, and contrasts with plumb_brand for color palette extraction. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, differentiating the tool from siblings effectively.

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