discover_ui_diffs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions visual model-based discovery but lacks details on side effects, duration, permissions needed, or output summary (despite existence of output schema).

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 (20 words) and front-loads the main action, but it could be more structured by enumerating inputs or output. It is concise but lacks completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters including an enum, and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention return values or how the analysis integrates with sibling tools (e.g., read_ui_diff_report).

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description only hints at expectedImagePath and actualImagePath via 'compares expected mockup against actual screenshot', but omits mode, runLabel, and projectRoot entirely, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool runs full UI diff analysis including visual model-based target discovery and classification, and compares expected mockup against actual screenshot. This distinguishes it from simpler comparison tools like compare_ui_images.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., compare_ui_images, start_ui_diff_run). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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