audit_ux_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what criteria are audited but says nothing about the output format (e.g., report, pass/fail), whether it is read-only, side effects on input data, or any permissions required. For an audit tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Audits' and the target, then lists the many compliance criteria. It is efficient and not redundant, though the lengthy enumeration could be structured as a bullet list for readability. It earns a 4 for being focused and free of 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?

Given the tool's complexity (many criteria) and lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the audit produces (e.g., a report, a score) or how the optional componentType parameter influences the audit. An agent cannot predict the return value or side effects, making the definition incomplete for practical use.

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% – both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description itself does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema states; it merely lists audit dimensions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Audits') and resource ('UI code or prompt specs') and enumerates the exact compliance frameworks it checks against. It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling audit_system_performance (performance vs UX) and get_ux_guidelines (retrieval vs audit). No ambiguity in what this tool does.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a UX compliance audit), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_ux_guidelines or audit_system_performance. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name and wording.

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