ux_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns findings with severity, rule citations, and fix suggestions, and that task_type routes to specialist modules. However, it does not explicitly state whether the audit is read-only or if it has side effects, which would be valuable for an agent.

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 composed of four sentences that flow logically: purpose, usage timing, parameter semantics, and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides necessary details without excessive fluff. A slightly tighter wording could be achieved, but it remains concise and readable.

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 tool has moderate complexity with specialist modules and rich output, and the description covers purpose, usage, routing, and output. There is no output schema, but the description mentions findings with severity and citations, which is sufficient. It could benefit from explicit differentiation from sibling tools like ux_score, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context by explaining that task_type controls which specialist modules load and lists possible values, but this largely mirrors the schema description. The description does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool audits UI code or screen descriptions against 42 core UX rules plus specialist modules, using the verb 'Audit' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ux_score and ux_generate by focusing on audit and rule compliance.

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?

Provides clear timing guidance ('during or after Forge (Phase 6)') and suggests using it before postrc_scan to catch UX issues. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond postrc_scan, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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