Audit every declared contrast pairing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a validation gate over declared contrast promises, and undeclared pairings are not guaranteed. It stops short of describing the exact output/report format, but the build-gate framing makes the pass/fail nature clear.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by when to use it, then the important contract warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With optional parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition covers the essential operational context. An explicit description of what the tool returns on success/failure is missing, but 'build gate' and 'failuresOnly' make the expected behavior reasonably inferable.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the 'one theme or all four' scope but adds no new parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: it runs every contrast promise in the design system against one theme or all four. This clearly differentiates audit_theme from a single-pairing check like check_contrast, leaving no doubt about scope.

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 tool is explicitly positioned as 'the build gate' with a directive to run it after any palette change, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended workflow is well communicated.

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