audit_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (score + findings with severity/evidence), the live-only limitation, and the current non-functionality of the figmaFileKey argument. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'audit' implies it.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then the limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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, the description provides a solid summary of the output (score + findings) and the return type. It gives examples of finding types and mentions severity/evidence. It could be more detailed about output structure, but it is adequate for a moderately complex audit 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that figmaFileKey is accepted but not yet functional, which is critical for agent expectations.

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 verb ('Audit'), the resource ('live URL's design-system token usage'), and the specific output (0-100 score and findings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_accessibility and scan_contrast by focusing on design tokens.

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 clear context on scope: audits the live page only, and explicitly warns that figmaFileKey is accepted but Figma comparison is not yet available. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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