argus_design_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the audit process, 13 mismatch types, selector fallback strategy, prerequisites (FIGMA_API_TOKEN, Chrome on debug port), and return structure. Minor omission: no mention of side effects or idempotency, but it's a read-only operation.

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 a dense paragraph packing all information into a single block. It front-loads the purpose but enumeration of 13 types could be structured (e.g., bullet list) for readability. Every sentence adds value, but structure could be improved.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the input schema, return values (findings, summary with counts), and non-obvious dependencies. It lacks error conditions or examples, but the complexity is high and the description is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating that the URL must be reachable and the Figma URL must include node-id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already describes parameters sufficiently.

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's purpose: 'Full design-to-implementation fidelity audit against a Figma frame.' It enumerates 13 specific mismatch types, selector fallback, and dependencies, making it distinct from sibling tools like argus_audit or argus_audit_full.

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?

The description implicitly indicates use cases for detailed audit but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions required environment setup, which is helpful but not comparative.

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