ui_check_alignment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'a number' but does not clarify what that number represents (e.g., boolean, distance, or confidence), nor does it state side-effect-free behavior or error handling. The defaults for axis and tolerance are only in the schema, not the description.

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 only two sentences with no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a helpful conceptual metaphor without unnecessary length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return format. Saying 'with a number' is vague and does not specify whether the output is a boolean flag, a measurement, or an aggregate value for multiple elements. This gap makes it difficult for an agent to correctly interpret results, especially since the tool lacks sibling differentiation in usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameters like 'axis' and 'tolerance' by mentioning 'on an axis' and 'within a tolerance', but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Ids are implicitly referenced as 'given elements', adding no extra detail.

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 checks whether elements share an edge along an axis within a tolerance, using the plain-English phrase 'are these on the same line' to convey the intent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ui_layout_audit by focusing specifically on alignment checks rather than general layout inspection.

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 implies usage for verifying visual alignment of UI elements, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or how to interpret the result in a broader workflow. No exclusions or typical call scenarios are provided, leaving the when-to-use guidance largely implicit.

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