detect_inconsistencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add value by specifying the kinds of inconsistencies detected, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or how the optional nodeId parameter affects the scan.

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 a front-loaded verb and a compact colon-separated list of examples. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the high-level purpose but leaves gaps. It does not explain the return format, the scope behavior when nodeId is absent, or how this tool relates to overlapping audit/lint siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents nodeId with 'Scope node', giving 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about this parameter or how it behaves when omitted. No bonus is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool finds design inconsistencies and enumerates three concrete categories: off-grid spacing, non-standard colors, and mismatched fonts. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like check_consistency or lint_design.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_consistency, lint_design, color_check_all, or type_audit. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for selecting this tool. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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