design_score_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool performs checks and returns a structured score report, implying an analysis-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it modifies the current work, or what permissions or preconditions are required.

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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loads the primary action and scope. The second sentence efficiently enumerates the checks and return type without unnecessary text.

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?

The description names the scoring criteria and says it returns a structured score report, but it does not describe the report fields or how detailed the analysis is. With no output schema and no annotations, some context about return values and operational scope is missing, though the core purpose is covered.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, lockupLayerId, and its schema description already explains its purpose fully. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run quality scoring on the current identity work.' It also lists the exact checks performed, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as design_check_contrast or critique_sketch, 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_check_contrast, design_test_at_sizes, or critique_sketch. The phrase 'current identity work' implies context, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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