check_alignment

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks alignment, gap rhythm, size consistency, grid conformance, and pixel-snap warnings. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden; it is transparent but could explicitly state it is read-only and non-destructive.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then lists capabilities, provides usage examples, and points to an alternative. Every sentence adds value; there is no wasted text.

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 description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. Given the absence of an output schema, the description sets clear expectations about the audit results (alignment deviations, gap outliers, etc.). It stops short of specifying the exact output format, but the level of detail is sufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the overall purpose and use cases for each parameter (e.g., 'audits ALL matches' for selector). It does not simply repeat schema descriptions, making it helpful for the agent.

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 specific verbs ('audit', 'align', 'checks') and identifies the resource as a GROUP of elements via selector or uids. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'measure_element' which handles single-element glyph centering.

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?

Explicit when-to-use examples are provided ('unevenly spaced', 'one card sits lower', etc.), and an alternative is given: 'For ONE element's internal glyph centering use measure_element instead.'

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