audit_scale_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the standards and specific checks (44px touch targets, 1.5 line height, etc.) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies tokens, or has side effects. Since it is an audit, read-only is implied but not explicit.

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 core purpose and immediately lists the standards. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the tool's purpose and standards but omits any mention of output or return value. Since no output schema exists, the description should hint at what the audit produces (e.g., recommendations, pass/fail). Without this, the agent may not know what to expect.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the specific compliance checks (e.g., 44px touch targets) and the meaning of the 'standard' parameter via examples. This helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond the 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 it audits design token scales against accessibility and platform standards, listing WCAG 2.2, Material Design, and iOS HIG with specific thresholds. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'validate_tokens' and 'audit_semantics' which have different scopes.

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 the tool is for checking token scale compliance but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not guidance. Sibling tools like 'validate_tokens' might be more appropriate for general validation, but no comparison is made.

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