producer_audit_and_heal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important trait: the tool does not just audit, it automatically self-heals contrast and ARIA failures. But it leaves unclear what changes are made, whether the input AST is mutated in place, whether the operation is reversible, and what happens when no failures are found.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the core action, the target resource, the issue categories, and the healing behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 input side is well covered because the only parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns and what exactly 'self-heal' modifies, which are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded or what side effects occurred.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema as 'The component AST to audit and heal,' and the tool description does not add meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (audits) and resource (component), and specifies the scope: accessibility and structural issues, plus automatic healing of contrast or ARIA failures. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like generate, mutate, export, and figma_sync.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use it: after producing or receiving a component that needs accessibility/structural verification and repair. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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