check_css_shorthand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and suggested action but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only status, network usage, or side effects. For a static analysis tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 explains the tool's purpose and suggests a recommendation but does not describe the output format or return value. Given no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the result structure. However, the description is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

The single parameter 'cssText' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description adds context about what the tool does with the parameter but provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 detects risky CSS shorthand + var() combinations that can fail silently, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like check_css_vars which likely focus on other CSS variable issues.

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 explains when to use the tool (to detect silent failures from shorthand + var() mixtures) and suggests a remediation (decompose into longhands). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides differentiation.

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