get_checklist

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description wasn't required to repeat them. It adds that the result is a list of yes/no verification items, which is useful, but does not clarify whether the checklist is a static, pre-defined list vs. generated from the current design state.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the tool's purpose, resource, and output shape. Every word earns its place with no repetition of annotation or schema content.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and supporting annotations, the description gives an agent everything it needs to call the tool correctly: what type to provide, why optional platform context matters (via schema), and what to expect back.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters: 'type' has clear examples and 'platform' has an enum plus platform-specific guidance. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so this sits at the schema-coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a pre-publish checklist for a specific UI type' and clarifies what the caller receives ('actionable yes/no items to verify before shipping'). This distinguishes it from sibling audit and evaluation tools, which analyze existing pages rather than return a type-driven checklist.

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 this is the right tool when you need a pre-shipping checklist for a known UI type, but it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools like audit_page, evaluate_design, or get_page_template. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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