audit_ux_heuristics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely does not. It never states whether the audit is read-only, whether it mutates the document, whether it requires a Figma selection, or how findings are surfaced (severity, count, remediation). Only the analytical criteria 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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and target come first, with the parenthetical only expanding the evaluation criteria. The dense parenthetical list makes it slightly harder to scan but every clause carries 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what an audit produces and whether it is safe/non-mutating. It instead stops at the criteria list, leaving the agent unable to predict the result shape or side effects before invoking a non-trivial analysis tool.

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 100% and the single optional nodeId parameter already documents its fallback behavior (current selection or page when omitted), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail of its own, which is the expected baseline for a high-coverage single-parameter schema.

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 gives a specific verb (audit) and a clearly scoped resource (visual design and interaction architecture), then enumerates the exact heuristics applied (Hick's, Fitts's, Miller's, Jakob's Laws). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like lint_ux_microcopy or lint_design_compliance by topic. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 heuristic scope: this is the audit for cognitive-load/UX-law issues as opposed to design-system compliance or microcopy. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. lint_design_compliance) despite several overlapping audit siblings. An agent must infer the boundary from the law list alone.

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