derive_density_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions applying scale factors while respecting WCAG minimum touch targets (44px) and outputting conditional tokens, which provides moderate transparency. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies input tokens, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds key behavioral details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 6 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain the structure of 'conditional tokens' or the scale factors applied. Sibling tools like transform_tokens may cover similar ground, but for this tool's complexity, additional detail would be helpful.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by mentioning WCAG constraints aligning with minTouchTarget, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: deriving a new density mode (compact/spacious) from existing tokens. It specifies the verb 'derive', the resource 'density mode', and distinguishes from sibling tools like transform_tokens by focusing specifically on density conversion with WCAG constraints.

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 usage context (when you have tokens and need a different density) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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