responsive_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'checks' but does not say whether it is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a report, boolean), or if it has side effects. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the tool name.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too terse, missing important context that would justify a longer description. No wasted words, but could improve by expanding on output or behavior.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how the results are presented. Agents need to know what to expect after calling the tool (e.g., a pass/fail, a list of issues). Missing this context hinders usability.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them sufficiently. The description does not add new meaning or detail about parameters, such as how 'breakpoints' should be formatted or what values are valid. 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 checks if a design handles different viewport widths correctly, specifying a verb ('check') and a resource ('design'). However, it is vague about what 'correctly' means and does not differentiate from sibling responsive tools like 'annotate_responsive' or 'convert_to_responsive'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools related to responsive design (e.g., 'set_breakpoint', 'stack_for_mobile'), the lack of context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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