fix_touch_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool auto-fixes touch targets but does not detail whether it resizes, scales, or enforces minimum dimensions, nor mention potential side effects like layout changes. The behavioral impact is under-specified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and input. However, it lacks details on the 'fix' operation (e.g., whether it resizes to exactly 44px or creates overrides) and any preconditions or limitations, leaving moderate gaps for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description for nodeId. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'Root node to fix' already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'auto-fix', the resource 'touch targets', and the condition 'below 44px in a node tree'. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like fix_spacing or audit_accessibility.

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 for fixing undersized touch targets but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. Context from sibling tools suggests many potential similar tools, making additional guidance beneficial.

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