design_system_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the check covers and by warning that this tool does not substitute for visual preview inspection. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 with no filler. The main action and scope come first, and the important limitation about visual inspection is appended clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only check tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the checks performed, and the boundary against preview. It does not mention what the output will look like or what happens if no pinned system exists, but no output schema exists and the tool's scope is narrow enough that this is a minor gap.

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 needed to compensate for the undocumented documentId parameter. It does not explain what documentId represents, how it relates to the 'current document,' or where to source it. The single parameter is simple, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's pattern constraint.

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 action ('Check') applied to a clear resource ('current document against its pinned system') and enumerates the exact scope: token usage, font sizes, and component provenance. It also differentiates itself from design_system_preview by explicitly noting visual judgment is out of scope, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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 clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate: for automated checks of token usage, font sizes, and component provenance. It also tells the agent that visual judgment requires preview inspection, implicitly routing visual needs to design_system_preview. It stops short of naming other alternatives like design_system_read, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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