basecoat_setup_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it never says whether generated artifacts are returned as text or written to disk, nor anything about repeat-run behavior or side effects. Adequate, but not additive.

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 action and its outputs are front-loaded, followed by the routing sentence. The first sentence is densely packed with long enumerations, but virtually nothing is wasted and the ordering of information is useful.

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?

For a read-only generator with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the artifact types produced so the agent knows what comes back. Minor gaps remain about output shape (single blob vs. multiple files) and whether anything persists, but the core call decision is fully supported.

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%, and the description merely repeats the framework and style-pack enumerations already in the schema. It adds no meaning about the alias parameters (id, name, componentId) or how environment relates to framework, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: generating Tailwind v4 @import statements, OKLCH tokens, @theme inline blocks, and bootstrap scripts. It enumerates the exact framework and style-pack domains and labels itself 'STAGE 1: ARCHITECT', which separates it from sibling stages like basecoat_compose_stack and basecoat_page_architect.

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 stage label plus an explicit 'Next step: Call basecoat_compose_stack or basecoat_page_architect' gives clear sequencing and routing. It does not state when NOT to use it or what prerequisites exist (existing config, project state), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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