delimit_design_validate_responsive

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

The description notes 'static CSS analysis' implying no modification, but without annotations, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects, or what happens with missing responsive patterns. It provides some behavioral context but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second adds scope details. It is efficient and front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's function and scope. It might be missing explicit mention of result format, but this is covered by the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a validation tool.

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 both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 responsive design patterns via static CSS analysis, and lists specific items scanned like media queries and viewport meta. This distinguishes it from sibling design tools like delimit_design_generate_component, which focus on generation rather than 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?

The description implies usage for checking responsive design patterns but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like delimit_design_generate_tailwind. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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