generate_design_spec_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a document is generated, leaving unclear whether this mutates the file or returns content, what the output format is, and whether prior data (tokens/components) must already exist on the artboard. For a generation tool with no annotation coverage, these gaps are significant.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and packs the deliverables into parenthetical detail. No fluff. It is slightly lean given the behavioral gaps elsewhere, but as written the sentence is efficient and readable.

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?

The core purpose is fully conveyed, and the tool is simple (2 params, 1 required). However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits behavioral context an agent needs to call it safely and appropriately — notably the return format and whether it is a pure read or produces a persistent artifact. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so both parameters (fileId, artboardId) are documented in the schema itself, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal context by hinting at what content the resulting spec relies on (tokens, components, dimensions), but does not elaborate on parameter semantics or interaction beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Generates') and a specific resource ('comprehensive design handoff specification document for engineering'), detailed with concrete content areas (tokens, components, dimensions, spacing redlines). This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like export_code, export, and write_html, which produce different artifacts (code or binary files). The purpose is 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are several export/generation tools (export_code, generate_component_states, write_html), and the description does not state conditions that select this handoff-spec tool over them, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., artboard must contain design tokens). Usage context is only implicitly derived from the purpose.

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