design_uniqueness

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes scope (what it identifies and ignores) but lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or output format. Adequate for a read-only analysis tool.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates with the 30-second test and specifics. Highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the analysis scope, methodology, and exclusions completely. Agent has sufficient context to decide when and how to use it.

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%, so description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description's value is in explaining the analysis concept, not parameter details.

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?

Clearly states the tool analyzes design uniqueness and memorability, with a specific focus on interaction uniqueness. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it ignores layout/colors/typography, making the purpose distinct and clear.

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 a concrete '30-second test' methodology and lists what the tool identifies (animation, philosophy, ideas, avoid copying). Implicitly differentiates usage by stating what it ignores, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use.

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