audit_design_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool checks tokens, naming, and structure, but fails to mention whether it modifies anything, required permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the output. This is a significant gap for a review 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?

The description is a single 12-word sentence that is efficient and free of fluff. It could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output format, behavioral side effects, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Checks tokens, naming, and structure' but does not clarify what 'audit' means or what the output will be. It adds minimal value beyond the schema definitions.

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 audits design system implementation for consistency, checking tokens, naming, and structure. This directly explains the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_accessibility or check_contrast.

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 when auditing design system tokens but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_accessibility or generate_component_example. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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