lint_design_mdScore a DESIGN.md (the brand and design context file models read before building): missing sections, no hex values, text and background pairs that fail contrast, too many typefaces, adjectives a model reads as the generic look, no never-list, no sizes, too long or too thin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The DESIGN.md contents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the failure modes checked (missing sections, no hex values, contrast pairs, typeface count, generic adjectives, never-list, sizes, length), but with no output schema it never says what the score looks like or whether findings are listed per-issue.
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?
Front-loaded with verb and resource, then a compact comma-delimited enumeration of checks. It is a long run-on sentence but every clause names a distinct check, so there is little waste.
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 single-parameter read-only linter, the description covers what is inspected and what constitutes a problem, which is enough to call it correctly. The main gap is the absent description of the returned score/issue structure, which the missing output schema leaves to inference.
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?
Only one parameter ('text') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains what to pass. The description indirectly clarifies that the input is a DESIGN.md document rather than arbitrary text, but adds no format or size expectations beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb ('Score') and a specific resource ('a DESIGN.md'), and the parenthetical defines DESIGN.md as the brand/design context file models read before building, which separates it from siblings like lint_design_feedback or lint_token_names. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied by the definition of DESIGN.md ('the file models read before building'), suggesting this runs against a project's design context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as lint_design_feedback or the audit_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.