run_audit

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states determinism, no prerequisites, no Figma, no AI, and describes return structure. It explains different focus modes but doesn't cover all edge cases or error conditions.

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?

Well-structured with separate lines for purpose, prerequisites, return, and focus details. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly verbose but each 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description is fairly complete. Covers return format, focus options, and sibling distinction. Could mention behavior for other focus values or error handling.

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%, but description adds significant value: explains focus values 'contrast' and 'skill-compliance' in detail, clarifies target default, and implies format for maxFiles. Goes beyond schema.

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 'run' and resource 'audit' with specific domains: WCAG contrast, token completeness, spec accessibility. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling analyze_design, stating this is systematic spec/token compliance vs AI vision review.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (systematic compliance checks) and when-not-to-use (use analyze_design for AI vision review). Also lists focus options like 'contrast' and 'skill-compliance' with their behaviors.

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