audit_swiftui

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: specific violations that get flagged (font sizes below ~13pt, empty AccentColor, sub-44pt frames, off-grid spacing), the 'Rewards...' scoring behavior, and the output contract ('pass/fail per check with fix instructions').

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads the action, packs the check list into compact parenthetical clusters, tacks on the scope restriction, and ends with the return contract. Every clause earns its place — around 70 words with zero filler, repetition, or marketing fluff.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape ('pass/fail per check with fix instructions') and the main behavioral surface. The optional profile/project binding and strict-mode grading semantics are carried by the 100%-covered schema, so nothing critical needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, and each of the 5 parameters already has a rich description (source concatenation, strict-mode semantics, taste-surface binding, accent_color_contents verification). The tool description adds only one cross-reference — tying the accent_color_contents parameter to the empty/undefined AccentColor check — which is useful marginal context but not compensating work, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a specific resource ('SwiftUI source') and a named standard ('Apple's Human Interface Guidelines'), then enumerates the exact rule categories checked. It also distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by declaring 'iOS-native checks only — no web/CSS rules'.

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 intended use context — SwiftUI iOS HIG auditing — is clear, and the exclusion 'no web/CSS rules' provides some boundary on when NOT to use it. However, none of the many overlapping audit siblings (audit_typography, audit_tap_targets, audit_contrast, audit_ios_a11y) are named, so when to choose this tool over an alternative is left to the agent's inference.

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