review_ui

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool captures a screenshot, runs audits, and returns data with methodology. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything (e.g., navigates to URL, changes files), nor does it describe potential side effects or permissions needed. The claim 'runs entirely within Claude Code' is helpful but 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 front-loaded with the purpose, but it includes an all-caps emphasis and a list of mandatory steps that could be more concise. The first paragraph is efficient, but the subsequent instructions add verbosity without being excessively long.

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 large number of sibling tools (e.g., lighthouse_audit, accessibility_audit, quick_review), the description fails to explain how review_ui relates to them or when to prefer an individual audit. No output schema exists, yet the description only says 'returns ALL data' without detailing what fields or structure to expect, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the parameter names and schema descriptions already provide. Parameters are straightforward (url, codeDirectory, width, height), and the description doesn't clarify formats or constraints further.

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 it's a pipeline for UI review, capturing screenshots and running multiple audits. It specifies when to use it (when user asks to 'review my UI', etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling composite tools like quick_review or the individual audit tools, which share overlapping functionality.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to...' and provides mandatory post-usage steps (study screenshot, analyze data, generate review, implement fixes). It also notes the tool is free. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context is clear.

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