design_analyze_text_spacing

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the return content (per-pair spacing, problem flags, suggestions), which is genuine behavioral value. But it never states whether the tool is read-only or whether 'suggests adjustments' means it may modify the layer, nor whether a text layer must be selected — a material ambiguity for a mutation-capable design tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the output summary follows immediately. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully previews what the report contains, which is the main thing an agent needs. The gap is whether the call is non-destructive and whether it depends on current selection state — relevant side effects remain unstated.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents layerId. The phrase 'of a text layer' in the description corroborates the schema but adds no syntax, format, or default guidance. 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Analyze kerning quality of a text layer', and it goes further to name what the analysis produces (per-pair spacing, flagged pairs, adjustments). That distinguishes it from adjacent type tools such as design_get_font_metrics or design_set_type_scale, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. does the layer need to be selected first?), and no comparison to alternatives like design_get_font_metrics or design_test_at_sizes. The agent must infer that this is a pre-finalization QA step.

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