audit_parity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the tool's operation: it checks named spatial relationships and generates per-relation statuses. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey.

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 with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately states required inputs, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function, input requirements, and output type. It could marginally improve by specifying the return format (e.g., a list of results), but the current level is sufficient for correct agent usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the meaning of the three required parameters: 'ios+android {elements,viewport} snapshots' and 'checklist[]'. It also elaborates on the checklist's purpose and the spatial relationships, adding significant value beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('iOS vs Android element snapshots'), explicitly naming the spatial relationships checked and the output types (match/mismatch/uncertain). It clearly distinguishes from sibling audit tools by focusing on cross-platform parity.

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 states what inputs to provide ('Provide ios+android {elements,viewport} snapshots and a checklist[]'), implying the tool is used for cross-platform layout drift detection. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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