audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three issue categories it detects but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it reports or mutates, what the output looks like, or any performance/limit characteristics.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste; the scope of checks is stated immediately. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the surrounding gaps rather than genuinely concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the audit returns (report, pass/fail, issue list) and how the path argument is supplied. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot fully predict invocation or result shape.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'path' is never mentioned in the description. 'Check any SVG' loosely implies the input is an SVG, but it does not clarify that the parameter is a filesystem path (string) rather than SVG markup, leaving the required argument's format ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource (SVG) with three concrete check categories (collisions, clipping, arrows through boxes), so an agent knows exactly what the tool inspects. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling 'validate', leaving overlap unresolved.

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 on when to use this versus the sibling 'validate', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that 'audit' is broader/diagnostic and 'validate' is rule-based, with nothing in the text to support that inference.

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