audit_asset_integrity

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it measures per-pixel luminance variance in the bottom strip and interprets uniform background as clean versus high-variance UI content as likely-sliced. This informs the agent about the mechanism and expected signal beyond the annotation flags.

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 well structured and front-loaded with the core detection purpose, then adds an example, method, and expected signal validity. Every sentence earns its place: no tautology, no repeated schema content, no filler, and the epsilon are kept at a useful detail level.

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, single-parameter audit tool, the description covers purpose, input, method, and result interpretation. The only gap is the lack of an explicit description of the return value shape, especially because there is no output schema; an agent would still need to infer whether the tool returns a pass/fail, a list of offenders, or report details.

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% because image_paths already has a clear description: 'Filesystem paths to PNG files to check for sliced/cut-off bottom content.' The tool description mostly restates this same idea, so it adds little parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect PNG exports whose content is sliced/cut off at the bottom edge.' It goes beyond the generic audit_* sibling pattern by naming the exact failure mode, giving an example (mid-form Figma export), and describing the per-pixel luminance method. This clearly distinguishes it from other audit tools.

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 provides clear context: use this when checking PNG files for bottom-edge slicing, especially cases where dimension/ratio checks would not catch the problem. It implicitly frames the alternative ('Dimension/ratio checks cannot catch cut content'), but does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state a hard when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a full 5.

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