detect_responsive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The one-line description gives no information about side effects, return values, or limitations. 'Detect' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of what the tool does with the input or what the output looks like.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. It is concise and without unnecessary words, though it could potentially add more useful context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is the only source of context about what the tool does and returns. The description is minimal and doesn't explain what 'detect responsive variations' means in practice, what the output format is, or how it relates to other tools. This is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full capabilities and limitations.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for 'figmaUrl' ('Figma file URL (any format)'), so the schema handles parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('responsive variations of components'), clearly stating the tool's core function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tool detect_variants, which might cause confusion about when each should be used.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like detect_variants or identify_components. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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