Work out the project's visual personality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does declare read-only semantics, that reference images must be opened by the agent rather than embedded in the result, and that it is a prerequisite step. It does not say anything about latency, cost, or the shape of the returned profile, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is scanned, followed by the workflow step and the override rule. The inventory of signals is dense but each item is load-bearing for interpreting the result, and nothing is restated from structured fields.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what is scanned, sequencing, and the user-override rule. The one remaining gap is the shape of the returned profile that gets handed to design_brief, which the agent must discover at call time.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; it correctly spends no words on inputs. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only scan of the project') and enumerates exactly what it inspects: 3D/animation libraries, tone of wording, brand colours, fonts, theme, and reference images. It is clearly separable from design_brief, which it explicitly feeds, and from design_audit/design_feedback.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering ('Call it first... then pass the result to design_brief') and names the downstream consumer, so the agent knows its place in the workflow. It also states a precedence rule — a user-stated level like 'premium' or 'minimal' overrides the inferred profile.

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