responsive_check

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 'check' is read-only but does not explicitly say whether it mutates the design, what 'correctly' means, what criteria are evaluated, or what the result/response contains. This is a meaningful transparency gap for an analysis tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is somewhat minimal, but the brevity is not problematic in itself; the missing details are more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the tool definition lacks important context: what the check returns, how correctness is determined, whether it is read-only, and what the role of breakpoints is. The schema provides good parameter documentation, but an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior or output.

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 documents nodeId and breakpoints. The description adds marginal context by connecting the task to viewport widths, but it does not explain how breakpoints are used, whether they override defaults, or what the expected format for nodeId should be beyond 'root frame to check.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a design handles different viewport widths correctly.' This clearly identifies it as a responsive-layout diagnostic, distinct from creation tools like create_responsive_variant or convert_to_responsive. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other audit/check siblings such as check_consistency or audit_accessibility, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 prefer this tool over alternatives, what prerequisites apply (e.g., nodeId should be a frame), or when the breakpoints parameter should be supplied. Sibling tools like set_breakpoint, convert_to_responsive, and annotate_responsive are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name and description alone.

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