compare_to_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison and says deviations are 'flagged', but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates anything, what scope it checks, how deviations are returned, or what constitutes the 'established design system'. This is minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 concise sentence with an active verb, a clear object, and a result, so it is front-loaded and free of filler. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits useful context that could have been added without bloating the description.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and only vague context about what 'design' and 'established design system' mean. The description does not explain the output format, the system being compared against, whether the operation is safe/non-destructive, or how this tool relates to the many similar sibling tools. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete.

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 only parameter, nodeId, is already described as 'Node to compare'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, such as whether nodeId can be a frame, a component, a selection, or whether it defaults to the current selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 states a clear action (compare), a target (a design), and a result (flag deviations against the established design system). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like detect_inconsistencies, check_consistency, or lint_design, and 'design' is ambiguous about whether it means the selected node or the whole document.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus similar alternatives. It does not mention whether to run it on a single node, a selection, or an entire page, nor does it name any alternative tools or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and one-line description.

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