critique_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool captures a screenshot and returns a self-critique framework with questions/principles/pitfalls, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the sketch, permission requirements, or how 'compositionLevel' affects severity.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return type. The second sentence about severity/compositionLevel is terse to the point of being cryptic, but the definition wastes little space.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three optional parameters, the description gives a useful high-level view of the returned critique categories but leaves out the output shape and the meaning of compositionLevel. It is adequate to identify the tool but not 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three optional parameters and the aspects enum. The description adds only 'per aspect' and an undefined compositionLevel calibration, which does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('critique') and resource ('sketch'), and it states that it captures a screenshot and returns a structured framework. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this workflow from sibling tools such as capture_screenshot or preview_sketch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than capture_screenshot, preview_sketch, or compare_sketches, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage hint is that aspects can be selected, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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