generate-gdweb-design-indexes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the internal exclusion list, the isolated per-result MCP sampling requests with no previous-result context, the file-writing sequence, the return format (only paths and statuses), and the client prerequisite of supporting sampling.

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 dense but front-loaded, opening with the trigger condition before moving to behavioral details. There is minor redundancy between 'one completely separate MCP sampling/createMessage request' and 'Each isolated request contains only one result,' but every sentence otherwise contributes non-obvious operational information.

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 the tool's complexity, eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: when to use it, how it executes, what it produces, what it returns, and what the client must support. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

All eight parameters have schema descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema already documents parameter meaning and defaults. The tool description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies a concrete verb-resource pair: it generates DESIGN_INDEX files from GDWEB references, and explicitly enumerates the deliverables (layout analysis, frontend specifications, implementation plans, DESIGN_INDEX files). It also differentiates the tool from search-gdweb-designs by stating it should never be replaced with that sibling plus a combined summary.

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 first sentence gives an explicit automatic trigger condition: use whenever the user asks for GDWEB references with layout analysis, specifications, plans, or DESIGN_INDEX files. The last sentence provides a clear when-not rule naming the alternative, search-gdweb-designs plus a combined summary, which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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