styling_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a comprehensive single-call validation, returns detailed diagnostics with inline fix suggestions, and that no separate suggest_fix call is needed. It does not mention side effects or performance, but the behavioral profile is well-covered.

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 a single, informative paragraph with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then lists return items. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is otherwise efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers the tool's comprehensive nature, return items, and usage timing. It lacks details on output format and error handling but is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when and why to use it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., 'HTML code to validate slot attribute references') but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema provides.

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 it performs 'single-call styling validation' combining component API discovery, CSS reference resolution, and anti-pattern detection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suggest_fix by noting that fixes are embedded, eliminating the need for a separate call.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this ONCE before finalizing any component CSS', providing clear timing. It implies a comprehensive alternative to running multiple individual checks, but does not explicitly list which sibling tools it replaces.

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