Compare Design Languages

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by revealing the concrete return shape — a side-by-side table of conventions, porting rules, and an explicit 'do NOT port' list — and by emphasizing the one-problem scope, which is useful contextual behavior beyond the annotations.

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 composed of three substantive sentences that front-load the core action and then provide output and use-case detail. The long enumeration of design problems mostly mirrors the schema enum, introducing minor redundancy, but the overall structure remains tight and scannable.

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 output schema, the description compensates well by explicitly describing the side-by-side table, porting rules, and do-NOT-port list. Schema coverage is 100%, annotations clarify the read-only safety profile, and the use cases are stated. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 both topic and platforms with examples. The description reinforces that topic is a design problem and platforms become columns, but it adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Compare') and a clearly delimited resource: how iOS, Android, macOS, and web each solve ONE design problem, with the problem categories enumerated. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_design_language or search_design_knowledge, making its cross-platform comparative purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit use conditions: 'when building the same product on more than one platform' or 'when deciding whether a pattern that works on one platform belongs on another.' It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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