audit_ux_tenets_traps

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

The description declares the tool is non-destructive ('does not modify source files') and describes the output structure. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits that would be important for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs with no unnecessary words. The first line states the purpose, the second explains the output, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no required params, no output schema) and good annotations coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, output fields, and non-modification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., file size limits for screenshots, error behavior), but overall it is sufficient for an agent.

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% and parameter descriptions are clear. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. No additional constraints or formatting details are provided.

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 verb 'Audit' and the resources 'UX tenets and traps'. It specifies the input sources (app-quality evidence or screenshot) and output format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose_app_quality' or 'analyze_design', which could cause confusion.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when an agent needs a focused design critique packet') and lists the criteria (clarity, feedback, etc.). It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, which would improve guidance given the sibling tools.

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