diff_design_system

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what kind of report is produced, what categories of drift are surfaced, and that output includes fix priorities. No contradiction with 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?

The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence. It starts with the core action and resource, then efficiently enumerates report contents without repeating schema details or including 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return value: it lists report categories and says the result is scored with fix priorities. It does not explain required setup or output format, but since there are no required params and the setup is referenced by the schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 the schema already documents all four params. The description mainly restates the general 'project/system vs baseline' concepts rather than adding new detail about platform, project_dir, or design_file_path semantics.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Diff'), names the resource (project's declared design system vs Raven canonical baseline), and lists concrete outputs (missing components/states/variants, token drift, fix priorities). It is clearly distinguished from sibling read-oriented tools by its comparison/diff intent.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when you need to compare a project design system against the Raven canonical baseline. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusion cases, so it relies on the agent inferring when other read/inventory/design-system tools might be better choices.

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