design_review

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'review' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive potential, auth needs, or side effects. The tool likely reads code without modification, but this is unconfirmed.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with key action and purpose. No superfluous information, 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what 'design system consistency' entails but is sufficient for a straightforward review. Could benefit from clarifying what is reviewed (e.g., colors, typography, spacing).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single parameter 'code' is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Review' and resource 'UI code' with specific purpose 'design system consistency', distinguishing it from siblings like design_a11y_check (accessibility) and design_component_create (creation).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Implied use for consistency checks, but no mention of when not to use or comparisons with siblings like design_responsive_test.

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