generate_responsive_variants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended output but does not say whether new artboards are created, whether the file is mutated, whether existing variants are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what the return value looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose and key dimensions efficiently.

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?

This is a generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the agent needs more context about side effects, result format, and the role of optional parameters like fileId. The current description is too thin to fully prepare an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping breakpoint values to concrete dimensions (390px and 820px) and clarifying that artboardId refers to the source desktop artboard.

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 and resource: it generates mobile and tablet artboard layouts adapted from a desktop design. It clearly conveys the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like generate_component_states or generate_theme_variant.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have a desktop artboard and need responsive mobile/tablet layouts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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