Build a focused UX review bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that selection is 'deterministic local keyword relevance' (not AI) and that the tool returns 'every entry from each selected checklist,' which clarifies the behavior beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant or filler information. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-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?

The description covers the core purpose, return behavior, and deterministic selection, while annotations cover safety. However, the 'limit' parameter's semantics are not explained in either the schema or the description, leaving ambiguity about whether it limits the number of checklists or entries. This is a minor gap, so the description is not fully complete.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 'description' and 'categories', and constraints for 'limit'. The tool description adds context about matching based on a described UI but does not clarify the role of 'limit'. With 67% schema coverage, the description only marginally supplements the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Select... and return every entry'), identifies the resource ('Checklist.design checklists'), and defines the scope ('screen, component, product area, or flow'). It also distinguishes itself from an AI design review and implicitly from siblings like search_checklists by emphasizing the return of every entry from each selected checklist.

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 the tool is used when describing a screen, component, product area, or flow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., search_checklists, get_checklist) or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than articulated.

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