lint_ux_microcopy

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. It discloses the analysis scope and that it 'recommends' rather than applies alternatives (implying read-only), but says nothing about side effects, whether it mutates the document, permissions, or output structure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Audit' and the resource, with every element of the parenthetical enumeration earning its place as a concrete example. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at what the audit returns (findings list, severity, suggested copy). It describes what is examined and that alternatives are recommended, but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (nodeId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that omission falls back to the current selection or active page. The description adds no parameter detail, which is fine at this coverage level.

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 (audit) and resource (text copy / UX microcopy) and enumerates exactly which anti-patterns it targets: Lorem Ipsum, lazy CTAs, blaming error messages, all-caps text. This scope cleanly separates it from siblings like lint_design_compliance or audit_ux_heuristics.

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 the usage context (auditing copy for UX writing issues) but never states when to choose this over audit_ux_heuristics or lint_design_compliance, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage must be inferred from the anti-pattern list.

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