Design Research Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. The description earns credit by disclosing the actual validation logic (6 apps on disk, valid cited brief) and the shape of the failure signal (problems list), which the annotations do not convey.

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 tight lines with the core action front-loaded, followed by a labeled 'Use when' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter gate with an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and pass criteria adequately; the brief 'Returns' hint is a bonus rather than a necessity. Slightly more detail on what 'problems' entries look like or remediation would make it fully complete.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents app_dir. The description adds no further detail about the parameter (e.g., path format or what disk contents are inspected), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Run the design_research gate') and immediately defines the pass conditions (>=6 reference apps on disk plus a valid, cited brief), which tells an agent exactly what this validator checks versus the sibling collectors/template tools.

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?

'Use when: before design_generate' gives an explicit, concrete trigger tied to a named sibling, so the agent knows when to invoke it. It stops short of stating when this tool is NOT appropriate or naming alternative checks, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternative specification.

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