coeus_design_review

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 says 'Review' but doesn't disclose what the review produces (a score? feedback? pass/fail?), whether it modifies anything, or what 'frontend taste criteria' means in practice. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It's concise and readable, though it could be slightly more informative about output or criteria without becoming bloated.

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?

For a review tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what the review returns, how the 'standards' parameter interacts with 'frontend taste criteria', or how this differs from coeus_design_review_bundle and coeus_counterfactual_review. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at expected output format.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the meaning of 'artifact' (screenshot, rendered HTML/CSS, or design artifact) and 'frontend taste criteria' as the standard, but doesn't elaborate on 'model', 'context', or 'standards' beyond their names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('a screenshot, rendered HTML/CSS, or design artifact') against 'frontend taste criteria'. This clearly distinguishes it from code review tools like coeus_review_code and git_diff_review, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 have a visual/design artifact to evaluate against frontend taste. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like coeus_design_review_bundle or coeus_frontend_taste_direction. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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