critique_ui

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 output shape (structured findings citing SKILL.md rules), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, whether it mutates anything, failure modes, or what happens when screenshots are omitted – significant gaps for an audit tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly-packed sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the audit action and the criteria. It could be slightly more informative about output format, but nothing is wasted.

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 description covers purpose, criteria, and output type for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. However, for a 6-parameter audit tool, it omits guidance on when screenshots are required versus code-only, how the required `code` parameter interacts with optional visual inputs, and any behavioral constraints, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters and both enums, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only high-level framing (what the audit checks) rather than meaning about specific parameters, so it does not exceed the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resources (UI code, rendered screenshots) and enumerates the exact criteria checked: spacing scales, typography hierarchy, contrast/WCAG AA, anti-AI-cliché patterns. This is clearly distinguished from sibling critique_backend, which would cover non-UI concerns.

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?

The description makes clear this is a UI-design audit, which implies usage, but it never states when to choose this over critique_backend or generate_fix, nor any preconditions (e.g., that screenshotPath or screenshotBase64 is needed for visual inspection). No explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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