detect_inconsistencies

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Find' implying read-only, but does not state side effects, scope (e.g., whether nodeId scopes the detection), or return format. No mention of whether it modifies the design.

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 sentence with clear front-loading of the verb. It is concise but could be slightly more structured to list examples separately for readability.

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 there is no output schema and many sibling tools, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how it differs from similar detection tools. It is too minimal for full understanding.

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% coverage (nodeId with description 'Scope node'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: to find design inconsistencies, specifically listing off-grid spacing, non-standard colors, and mismatched fonts. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from many siblings like 'align_nodes' or 'annotate_spacing'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_consistency', 'lint_design', or 'scan_design_system'. The description lacks any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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