validate_ui_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool checks (hardcoded colors, outdated patterns) and that it can show fix suggestions, but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only or makes changes, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., report format), or any rate limits. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose and key checks. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Проверить' - Check) and includes no redundant information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (validation with multiple boolean toggles), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, success/failure status), how errors are handled, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all four parameters (project_path, check_colors, check_components, fix_suggestions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'хардкод цветов' (hardcoded colors) and 'устаревшие паттерны' (outdated patterns), which align with check_colors and check_components, but doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Проверить использование UI 2.0' (Check UI 2.0 usage) with specific checks for hardcoded colors and outdated patterns. It uses a specific verb ('Проверить' - Check) and resource ('использование UI 2.0' - UI 2.0 usage), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar-sounding siblings like 'check_project_compliance' or 'analyze_project', which might also involve 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'check_project_compliance', 'analyze_project'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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