audit_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions multi-image support, but says nothing about whether the audit is read-only, what it returns, how the diff/threshold behavior surfaces, or any auth/side-effect characteristics. For an audit tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the dash-separated trailing clause is brief enough that it could have carried more useful context instead.

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?

The tool has a nested options object, 3 parameters, and no output schema, yet the description never explains what the audit produces or how results are reported. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do much more to be complete.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the 'multi reference image' hint, which loosely maps to referenceImagePaths being an array, but gives no meaning for designCode or the nested options. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (对比/审计 = compare/audit) and resource (generated code vs reference images), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like generate_design or extract_tokens, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase '对比生成的代码与参考图' implies the usage context (you have generated code and reference images to validate), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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