type_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only audit by saying 'Find' and 'Flag,' and it names specific flag categories, but it does not state what the returned output looks like or how scoping works beyond the schema. Some behavior is disclosed, but not fully.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence lists specific audit outcomes. Every word contributes value.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but without an output schema or annotations, the agent still lacks details on the return format or how flags are represented. The description is usable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the nodeId parameter is already documented as 'Scope node (page if omitted).' The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the same page context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find every unique text style in a page.' It then adds a clear audit purpose with 'Flag off-scale sizes, inconsistent weights, and orphaned styles,' which distinguishes it from list-only siblings like type_list_styles.

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 use for typography consistency audits at page level, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like type_list_styles, type_check_measure, or type_normalize. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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