Suggest fixes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, but the description adds useful behavioral details: it produces exactly two messages with different audiences and explicitly states it never modifies the file. That goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important side-effect guarantee ('never modifies the file') is placed at the end as a clear qualifier.

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 simple, read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains the output concept (two messages) and the safety profile. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the exact return format would have pushed this to a 5.

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 explains both parameters clearly: file is a relative path and preset is an enum of print products. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: turning artwork problems into two concrete messages (customer-facing and internal). It also clarifies that the tool only suggests and never modifies the file. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'problems found in an artwork file' implies this tool is used after analysis, and the read-only nature implies it is not a replacement for inspect_artwork or check_print_readiness. However, it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.

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