Design review — measure the design system + flag smells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a zero-image audit (no screenshots), that it measures the design system, and that it flags smells with selectors. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool mutates state, whether it requires authentication, whether it navigates or reuses the current page, or what the response format looks like. The 'zero-image' note is useful but the behavioral profile is incomplete.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Zero-image DESIGN audit'), then lists measured elements and flagged smells efficiently. Every clause adds information; no filler or repetition.

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 read-only audit tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it measures, what it flags, and how it differs from a sibling. It doesn't describe the response format or verdict behavior, but the schema's maxSmells parameter hints at the CI-gate behavior. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (auth, page reuse), but the core selection and invocation information is present.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about what the tool measures but doesn't add meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('measures'), a clear resource (the page's actual design system), and enumerates exactly what is measured (palette, type scale, spacing rhythm, radii, shadows) and what it flags (design smells with addressable selectors). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_accessibility as the 'taste counterpart,' which differentiates it from a key sibling.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a design-system audit rather than an accessibility audit, and it names the alternative (scan_accessibility). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives, but the 'taste counterpart' framing gives clear context for selection.

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