compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-initialization of the default browser, but does not indicate whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing patterns), requires session prerequisites, or what the side effects are for the 'write' and 'play' actions.

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?

Two sentences (21 words) conveying the core purpose and a key behavioral note. Extremely concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Despite the tool having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, prerequisites (beyond browser), or how it interacts with the session system. For a complex generative tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of 'style' options or 'session_id' behavior). The brief mention of browser initialization is only tangentially related.

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's action ('Generate, write, and play a complete pattern in one step') and implies a combined workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define what 'pattern' means.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other pattern-related tools. The description only mentions auto-initialization of the browser, which is a technical detail rather than usage context. There are no when-not or alternative tool references.

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