Validate a UI composition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the analysis scope (accessibility, token, specificity, typography, motion, copy, generic-default, proof checks), which is useful context, but says nothing about output format, severity levels, or whether any fix suggestions are returned.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the check categories packed efficiently. Nothing is wasted and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back; it names the problem categories but never says whether the result is a report, a list of findings, a pass/fail, or how 'file_name' shapes that report. For a no-output-schema validation tool this leaves a real gap.

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% with only two simple parameters, so the schema already documents both 'code_snippet' and 'file_name'. The description adds no format, language-detection, or size-limit guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Check') plus the resource (TSX, JSX, HTML or CSS snippet) and enumerates the exact problem classes it looks for. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all design-system lookups (list_components, get_design_tokens, etc.) rather than validators.

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 purpose implies you call it when you have a composition snippet to inspect, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing away from siblings. An agent must infer the trigger condition from the purpose statement alone.

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