ux_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fully explains the tool is a read-only reference, details its fallback behavior for unrecognized topics, and notes it returns guidance content without side effects. No hidden be­havioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 long but well-structured; it opens with the main use case, specifies the covered patterns, and clarifies the auditing feedback loop. While it includes additional detail than strictly necessary, that extra context is valuable for guiding topic selection and instrumental in avoiding misunderstandings.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage flow, content scope, behavior with invalid input, and connection to sibling tool. No significant information is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema description already fully explains the topic parameter (available values, aliases, fallback). The description adds illustrative examples (layout, forms, etc.) and mentions specific patterns but does not contribute new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema description coverage (100%), a baseline score is appropriate.

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 provides best-practice UI guidance to read before building or changing UI, specifying the resource ('guidance') and the action ('read'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_url and get_shot by focusing on pre-empting audit findings rather than auditing screenshots.

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 couples the guidance with a workflow: read the topic before building, then confirm with audit_url. This clearly contrasts with the sibling options for when to use this tool, providing practical 'when to use' and 'when not to use' context.

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