designer_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral framing — input is treated as untrusted and the tool deliberately produces no findings or scores — which manages expectations. It does not describe rate limits, failure modes, or how the 'plan' is shaped, leaving a moderate gap against a rich annotation set.

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 filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (description-only, no inspection) comes first. It is dense with semicolon-separated clauses and compressed jargon, which costs a little readability but wastes no words.

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 presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, and the negative scope statements clarify the tool's limits. However, two of three parameters are unexplained, and the description never clarifies how the untrusted description is consumed or what a 'plan' comprises, which is thin for a planning tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies the required 'description' parameter. The 'limit' parameter (default 3, max 10) and 'platform' parameter (default 'web', 100 chars) are never mentioned in either the schema or the description, so an agent gets no meaning for two of three inputs.

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 names a specific action ('Plan ... audit') and resource, and draws hard scope boundaries ('from untrusted description only; no image/DOM inspection'). The phrase 'anti-slop polish audit' is jargon that an uninformed agent may not fully decode, and it never states what a 'plan' output actually is, but the verb/resource pairing and the exclusions make it distinguishable from designer_get_asset or designer_brief.

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 gives a clear selection condition: use this when all you have is a text description, because image/DOM inspection and findings/scores are explicitly out of scope. It does not name which sibling (designer_brief, designer_get_reference) to use when you do have an image or want scored findings, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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