code_verify_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the detection logic (duplicate primitives, arbitrary Tailwind values) but does not state that it is read-only, does not perform mutations, or note any auth/side-effect expectations.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the specific checks appended. No filler; minor room to expand on parameter roles without bloat.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the definition should do more: it omits the return value shape (pass/fail details?) and the meaning of the two optional parameters. Adequate for the core action but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 3 parameters. The description loosely maps 'file' to the implementation file and 'the plan's Figma components' / 'mapped code components' to planId/figmaComponents, but it never clarifies the interplay between planId and figmaComponents or acceptable formats.

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 (verify) plus resource (implementation file against the design's plan) and details the concrete checks it performs (raw <button>/<input> duplicates, arbitrary Tailwind values). It is distinct from scan/mapping siblings, though it never explicitly names code_scan_components or code_mapping as the alternatives.

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 nature of the check implies when it applies (post-implementation verification against the design plan), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many figma_* and code_* siblings.

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