validate_ui_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the broad purpose, omitting any specifics about side effects, error handling, authentication needs, or return format. The existence of an output schema helps but is not described here.

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, clear sentence. However, it may be too terse given the lack of parameter support; a bit more structure (e.g., listing key behaviors) could improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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 lack of schema descriptions, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to define key terms ('design system', 'WCAG'), missing details about the validation process and output. The presence of an output schema is positive, but not referenced.

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 description provides no explanation of the two parameters ('ctx' and 'specification'). The term 'UI specification' hints at the specification parameter but does not clarify format or expected structure.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Validate' and the object 'a UI specification' against specific standards (design system and WCAG). This distinguishes it from 'generate_ui_spec' which creates specs, but does not explicitly differentiate from other validation-like tools (e.g., vibe_audit, vibe_verify).

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 tool versus alternatives. Does not indicate prerequisites, typical workflow placement (e.g., after generation, before deployment), or when not to use it. A clear gap given the sibling count.

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