Design Upload Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description's 'read-only' is largely redundant. It adds the useful notion of comparing against a prior upload ('unchanged since'), but discloses nothing about how the comparison is made or what counts as a changed file.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then structured 'Use when:' and 'Returns:' lines. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it lists the keys anyway. It is complete for a one-parameter diagnostic tool; only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from 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 coverage is 100% and the single app_dir parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'local Claude Design project' mildly contextualizes app_dir but adds no syntax or format detail.

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 ('check') and resource ('local Claude Design project'), plus the precise condition validated ('uploaded and unchanged since'). It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate itself from design_record_upload or similar, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Use when: diagnosing a design gate failure' line gives an explicit triggering scenario. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., vs. design_record_upload).

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