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. The description adds meaningful context: the scope (all four themes or one), the build-gate role, and a key semantic rule ('A pairing that is not declared here is not promised'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states what it does, the second gives usage and a critical design-system rule. Perfectly front-loaded and structured.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a semantic constraint. It doesn't describe output format or failure reporting, but the read-only annotation and clear scope make the tool easy to use. Sibling differentiation via check_contrast is implicit but sufficient.

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 both parameters described in the schema. The description restates the theme omission behavior ('one theme or all four') which is already in the schema, and doesn't add new meaning for failuresOnly. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('every contrast promise... against one theme or all four'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_contrast by emphasizing it audits all declared pairings, not just specific checks.

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 explicitly names when to use it: 'run it after any palette change' and frames it as the 'build gate.' It doesn't name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it's the comprehensive audit.

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