audit_runtime

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions writing artifacts but does not specify side effects, permissions, what gets modified, or what the output contains. It also fails to clarify the semantics of 'semantic audit artifacts' or the comparison process. This ambiguity is risky for a tool with side effects.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it lacks important context. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices essential information. A well-crafted description of this length can earn a higher score, but this one doesn't include usage or side-effect details, so it's adequate but not exemplary.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the high-level purpose and fails to explain return values, artifact format, retry behavior, or how the comparison works. The schema provides parameter details, but the description leaves significant contextual gaps, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond referencing 'Figma raw frame' and 'current DebugBridge page', which loosely correspond to figmaRawPath and expectedPageID. This meets the baseline but adds little value.

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 action: comparing a Figma raw frame with the current DebugBridge page and writing semantic audit artifacts. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_debug_page or get_runtime_node, which focus on retrieval rather than comparison/audit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare-and-contrast with sibling tools. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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