audit_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it performs an audit and returns a gap analysis. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 sentences: first describes the action and outputs, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, efficiently conveys purpose and context.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and the outputs, but does not describe the return format or provide examples. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete regarding the response structure.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (components, description, checkAccessibility). The description paraphrases the schema ('provide the components used') but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 resource 'design', and specifies the outputs: missing tokens, naming issues, accessibility problems, and concrete fixes. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on component-level design system compliance for handoff.

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 advises using this tool 'before handoff to ensure design-system coverage,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like audit_semantics or audit_scale_compliance.

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