check_consistency

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. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only analysis, but the description never states what the tool returns, whether it mutates anything, what it compares against (local styles, variables, heuristics), or how results are delivered.

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 verb and scope with no filler; every word earns its place. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter tool, though some brevity could have been traded for routing or behavioral context without bloating the definition.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the check produces, and it does not. The existence of the near-duplicate sibling detect_inconsistencies and the lack of any differentiation make this definition materially incomplete for an agent choosing which tool to invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, with nodeId documented as 'Root node to check,' so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The phrase 'across a design' adds modest context by implying the check traverses the subtree beneath the root node, but no substantive parameter detail is added beyond that.

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 action ('Check') and a concrete scope ('inconsistent colors, fonts, spacing, and radii across a design'), which clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling detect_inconsistencies, which appears to cover nearly the same purpose, so it falls short of full sibling separation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus detect_inconsistencies, lint_design, compare_to_system, color_check_all, or type_audit. The description contains no conditions, exclusions, or mention of alternatives.

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