audit_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and source of principles, without describing return format, side effects, or any restrictions. This is a significant gap given the lack of 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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and basis. No filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), yet the description lacks explicit usage differentiation among siblings and any mention of output format. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in contextual guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-defined in the schema. The description adds no unique parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reference the relevant design principles. Baseline 3 applies per the rubric.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get visual design feedback' with a specific scope (layout, color, typography, imagery). It differentiates from sibling audit tools like audit_conversion and audit_content by focusing on visual design aspects, satisfying the specific verb+resource+scope criterion.

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 visual design review but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or recommend other tools for different audit types, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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