audit_report_ux_and_storytelling

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope behavior ('audits all pages if omitted') and the return shape (0-100 score, category breakdowns, suggestions), but never states that this is a read-only, non-destructive local analysis with no writes to the .pbip, nor any permission or performance notes. Adequate but with a clear gap given 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by purpose-built trigger bullets and an Args/Returns block. Every section earns its place, though the Args and Returns lists restate information the schema/output schema already carry, adding some redundancy.

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 4-parameter, single-required read/analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, the meaning of each parameter, and the shape of the result. Given the output schema exists, the Returns summary is a bonus rather than a necessity; the only real gap is the absence of any behavioral/safety note.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are documented in the Args block, including that page_name is optional and defaults to auditing all pages and that strictness/audience_assumed take named categorical values. It stops short of enumerating the allowed values as a closed set (schema declares no enums) or giving syntax examples for pbip_path.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Evaluate/Audit) and concrete resources (report storytelling, visual hierarchy, cognitive load, UX design), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. The 'when the user asks to' bullets further scope it to design-quality and dashboard-best-practice auditing, distinguishing it from siblings such as audit_model_and_report (model+report) and design_report_page_from_requirements (generation).

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('Audit report design quality, narrative flow, or visual hierarchy' and 'Check if a report follows dashboard best practices for a specific audience'), so an agent knows when to reach for it. It does not name an alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to prefer audit_model_and_report or optimize_report_performance instead), which keeps it short of a 5.

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