check_theme_compatibility

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

No annotations provided, but description covers main behavior: validates CSS, detects specific issues. Implies read-only operation (no side effects mentioned). Could add more on error handling or output format, but adequate for a validation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage context. No unnecessary words; efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema, but description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues, pass/fail, severity). For a validation tool, this is a notable gap. However, complexity is low and parameters are well-documented.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; 'cssText' and 'libraryId' are self-explanatory. Baseline 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 validates consumer CSS for dark mode and theme compatibility, listing specific checks (hardcoded colors, shadows, contrast). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_color_contrast' and 'check_dark_mode_patterns' by focusing on CSS code validation.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Run this on styling code to ensure it adapts to theme changes.' Notes it works on any CSS and does not require CEM. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but context is sufficient for most agents.

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