superdesign_check_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'check for file changes' and 'comparing,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., a list of changed files). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check for file changes') and adds context ('for gallery refresh integration'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's complexity (involving file comparison and integration), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of changed files, a status), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('workspace_path' and 'manifest'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, formats, or constraints (e.g., how 'manifest' should be structured beyond the schema). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic insights are provided.

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: 'Check for file changes by comparing current files with a manifest.' It specifies the verb ('check for file changes') and resource ('files'), and mentions the context ('for gallery refresh integration'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'superdesign_list' or 'superdesign_gallery', which might have overlapping file-related functions.

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 implies usage in the context of 'gallery refresh integration,' suggesting it's for detecting changes to update a gallery. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'superdesign_list' for listing files or 'superdesign_gallery' for gallery operations), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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