canvas_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the scope (nodeId → selection → current page), the checks performed, and the return format (counts + failing nodes). It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a read-only audit, the key behaviors are disclosed.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and readable.

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 complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, scope, checks, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

The schema has no descriptions for its 5 parameters. The description adds meaning for 'check' by explaining each enum value (contrast, touch, text, all) with criteria. 'level' is implied in the contrast check but not explicitly linked. 'minTouch' and 'minFontSize' are referenced but not explicitly as parameters. Overall, it adds significant value but could be more explicit about parameter mapping.

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 it performs an accessibility audit on the live canvas, listing specific checks (contrast, touch, text, all). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_design or get_canvas_tree, which serve other purposes.

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 description implies use for accessibility auditing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is hinted but not fully explicit.

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