lint_design_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what the audit checks (touch targets, grid spacing, typography, emojis) and that it produces a score, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the score represents, or how results are returned. The core behavior is clear, but key details about output and side-effect-freedom are missing.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and then packs the acceptance criteria into a compact parenthetical list. There is no filler, and every clause contributes useful information. This is an efficient use of the description budget.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input scope and evaluation criteria, but it does not explain the result format, scoring scale, or how an agent should interpret the output. Since there is no output schema to compensate, this is a meaningful gap for an agent intending to act on the result.

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%, so the schema already fully documents nodeId, including the optional/fallback behavior (audit the active canvas page if omitted). The description rephrases the same scope ('any screen or the active canvas page') without adding new parameter-level semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds little beyond the 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 names a specific verb ('Audit and score') and a clear resource ('any screen or the active canvas page'), and it enumerates the exact compliance standards checked. No sibling tool is a lint/audit tool, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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 when to use the tool (to audit a screen or page against compliance standards) but provides no explicit guidance contrasting it with related analysis tools like inspect_node, get_design_context, or generate_ui_tree. The agent must infer that this is the audit/score choice from the verb, not from any stated alternatives or exclusions.

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