diff_design_system

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, confirming no side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context: what specific issues are reported (missing components, states, variants, token drift) and the output format (scored report with fix priorities), going beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and packs detailed output information efficiently. Every word contributes meaning; no wasted space.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (scored report with fix priorities). It covers the tool's functionality and input parameters (via schema). Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that all parameters are optional, but the schema conveys that. Overall complete for a read-only diff tool.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning for individual parameters; it provides overall context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the action ('Diff a project's declared design system'), the resource (DESIGN.md vs Raven canonical baseline), and the specific outputs (missing components, states, variants, token drift, scored report with priorities). It clearly distinguishes from sibling audit tools by specifying the baseline comparison aspect.

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 implies use for checking design system compliance against a baseline, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'audit' or 'evaluate_design'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though the purpose is clear enough for an AI to infer typical use.

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