compare_design_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral signal beyond that — the result includes 'actual token differences' — but with no output schema it says nothing about result shape, ordering, or what happens if an ID is unresolved.

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; the count constraint and token-difference payoff are both packed in efficiently. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only comparison tool this covers the basics, and the annotations handle safety. However, with no output schema, the vague hint about 'token differences' leaves the agent without a clear picture of the returned comparison.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially compensates by stating the 2–5 count range and that the IDs denote bundled assets, but the ID format/pattern constraint and failure behavior for invalid IDs are left undocumented.

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 (Compare) plus a concrete resource scope (2–5 bundled style/UI/background assets), and it flags that output includes real token differences. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling compare_templates, so an agent must infer the asset-vs-template split from wording alone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. The only implied context is the implicit comparison use case, and nothing routes the agent between this and compare_templates.

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