design_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the check is read-only, what the output contains, whether it needs a taskId or createdBy to be meaningful, or any side effects. Only 'baseline' and 'centralized' add context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though brevity here may under-serve the tool's complexity.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the checks performed, the role of each parameter, and what comes back. It covers only two parameters and gives no result or safety context, 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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The description mentions the required uiSummary and the optional tokens, but leaves taskId, createdBy, and accessibilityNotes entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and a concrete resource ('baseline centralized design-system and accessibility checks') scoped to inputs ('UI summary and optional tokens'). It is distinguishable from siblings like multimodal_analyze or review_request, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

'Baseline centralized' hints at the check's position relative to other tooling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer whether this belongs before change_propose/review_request or replaces them.

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