Design Review Checklist

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating the checklist is assembled from the knowledge base and includes key rules and anti-patterns per area, implying no live design analysis is performed. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies practical use. 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 tool with two enum-bounded parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the output, how it is assembled, and how it should be used. It does not explicitly mention the focus parameter, but the schema covers that, so no significant gap remains.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only general context around 'areas' and project types, but does little to explain the focus parameter beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states a specific action ('generate a structured design-review checklist') on a specific resource (project type), and explains what the checklist contains. It distinguishes itself from audit tools by framing the output as a checklist for auditing rather than an audit itself, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use the checklist to audit an existing design or as acceptance criteria for a new one. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use cases are concrete enough to guide an agent.

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