sally_frontend

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: never stored, never used for training, read-only, returns markdown with categorized issues. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint).

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: core function, usage scope, privacy/behavior, output format and pricing. No 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 no output schema and multiple frontend types, the description sufficiently covers tool behavior, safety, return format (markdown with categorized issues), and usage limits. Complete for agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two 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 clearly states it roasts frontend/UI code, listing specific types (HTML, CSS, JSX, Vue, Svelte), and distinguishes from the sibling sally_roast for general-purpose code.

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 says when to use this tool (for frontend/UI code) and when not to (use sally_roast instead). Also mentions premium tier usage limits, providing context for agent decision-making.

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