audit_rtl_ui_compliance

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 discloses the tool's auditing/verification nature but does not clarify side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions, rate limits, or the return format. The behavioral implications of 'audit' are left unstated.

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 sentence, direct and without fluff, which earns its place. However, it is very brief and could have been structured to include key details like output expectations without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the audit returns (e.g., report, boolean, list) and what RTL rules are applied. The current description is insufficient for an agent to know how to interpret results or fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema describes codeSnippet as a string with 0% coverage from the description, but the description's phrase 'كود الواجهات' (interface code) adds semantic meaning that the parameter refers to UI code. While this is a useful cue, it does not specify format, language, or other constraints.

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 tool audits interface code for RTL and logical direction compliance, using a specific verb ('فحص'/'inspect') and resource ('كود الواجهات'/'interface code'). It distinguishes from sibling generation/build tools implicitly by being an audit/verification tool, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, without scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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