generate_component_states

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals the output states but does not say whether the tool mutates the document, creates new nodes, overwrites existing content, or requires a particular file/document state. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a generation tool with side-effect potential.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds value by naming the resource and the concrete states included, making it an appropriately sized definition.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It names the required inputs and the expected output content, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits behavioral context such as whether this is a mutating operation and what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 100%: all three parameters have meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to because the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 ('Generates') and a concrete resource ('component interaction state sheet') and enumerates the exact states included, making the tool's function unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling generation tools like generate_responsive_variants or generate_theme_variant, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states only what the tool does, not when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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