Validate Wireframe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds behavioral context by detailing what the tool checks (margins, gaps, etc.) and what it returns (errors, warnings, stats), going beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short phrase. It front-loads the core purpose and specifics in the first sentence, then adds output details and pairing suggestion in the second. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters (0 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what validation is performed, what output to expect, and how to combine with a sibling tool. No gaps remain.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description echoes the scope options and auto-resolution behavior but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 validates layout against wireframe rules, listing specific checks (margins, gaps, overlap, etc.) and output types (errors, warnings, stats). It distinguishes itself from the sibling pbir_audit_theme_compliance by suggesting pairing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly marks the tool as read-only and recommends pairing with pbir_audit_theme_compliance for full verification. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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