audit_theme_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly declares 'READ-ONLY' and details what it checks, giving useful context about its non-destructive nature. However, it does not explain the output format or potential side effects such as performance impact, though the read-only claim covers the main safety concern.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('READ-ONLY theme lint') and then lists specific checks. Every clause adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity, the description provides solid coverage of its function, the checks performed, and its read-only nature. It does not specify the return format, but since there is no output schema, mentioning that it 'reports' overrides is somewhat vague. Still, the listed categories give agents a strong understanding of the tool's capabilities.

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 input schema has one required parameter, reportSessionId, but the description does not mention this parameter or explain its role in the operation. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer that the tool operates on the currently open report session from the name alone.

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's purpose: 'READ-ONLY theme lint' that walks visual formatting trees and reports hard-coded overrides conflicting with the theme. It enumerates specific issue categories (off-palette colors, frozen palette colors, title font overrides, card-style overrides), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like audit_star_schema and audit_naming.

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 implies the use case—auditing theme compliance before a theme swap—and references read_theme as the source of defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it, lacking the explicit exclusions that would merit a 5.

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