Checks whether the local Claude Design project is uploaded and unchanged since the last gate, so design gates can confirm the current design is synced.
Is the local Claude Design project uploaded and unchanged since (the check every design gate runs)?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the semantic it checks (uploaded and unchanged state) but nothing about how 'unchanged' is determined, permission/auth needs, or failure behavior; for a gate check whose result gates downstream steps this is thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the parenthetical adds genuinely useful gate context without bloat. The only cost is the broken 'unchanged since' construction, which slightly undermines the efficient structure.
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?
Output schema and low complexity mean return values and structure need little explanation, but the description omits any mention of the app_dir parameter and leaves the 'since' clause unresolved, so an agent still lacks the minimal information to call and interpret this gate check confidently.
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 single required parameter app_dir has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated but does not, so despite the parameter being plausibly obvious, no semantic meaning is added.
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 conveys the resource (local Claude Design project) and the state checked (uploaded and unchanged), and 'the check every design gate runs' hints at its role versus siblings like design_record_upload. However, the phrasing 'unchanged since' is grammatically dangling (since what?) and the intended verb/result is left implicit, so the purpose is understandable but imprecise.
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?
It implies usage context by saying it is 'the check every design gate runs', which tells an agent it is a gate/precondition check. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no when-not, and doesn't name sibling tools, so guidance remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.