plan_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns suggestions and requirements, implying a read-only analysis without side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some ambiguity about behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the problem ('blank canvas syndrome') and lists outputs. Every phrase adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers its purpose, inputs, and outputs. It could be enhanced with more detail on output structure or error handling, but it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'description' parameter (e.g., natural language examples) but does not elaborate on 'maxPatterns' or 'includeScaffold' beyond what the schema provides. No additional meaning is added to the parameters.

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 ('describe', 'get back') and resource ('UI patterns, component inventories, token surface requirements, next steps') to clearly state the tool's function. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by targeting 'blank canvas syndrome' and starting new designs, which differentiates it from analysis or validation tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly states it's 'perfect for starting a new design or understanding what a feature needs', providing clear use cases. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools (e.g., scaffold_semantics) for related tasks, which would strengthen the guidance.

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