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

Annotations declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with that. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the diagnostic payload shape (line/column, rule id, message, suggested fix) and the expectation that the agent act on findings. It does not discuss severity semantics or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then audience-facing detail and input routing. Four sentences with essentially no filler, though the long enumeration of diagnostic categories is denser than strictly needed.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and it still summarizes them usefully. Inputs, the action expected after a run, and the diagnostic content are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes meaning the schema lacks: the mutual-exclusivity/intent distinction between `code` (unsaved buffer) and `path` (project file), which shapes how an agent picks between the two. That is genuine added semantics.

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 precise verb+resource ('Lint TSX/JSX against the design system') and then enumerates the exact classes of problem it detects (hardcoded colors/spacing/radius, native elements, unknown components/props/variants, inaccessible icon-only buttons). The sibling tools (list/get/search_components, get_tokens) are all lookup operations, so this diagnostic tool is unambiguously distinguishable.

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?

Gives an explicit call-to-action ('Run it on every snippet or file you write and fix all errors') and a routing rule for inputs ('Pass `code` for unsaved code, or `path` for a file in the project'). It does not name a when-not condition or a sibling alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/closed-world/no-destruction, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: that it accepts dotted names like 'Card.Header', and that at a monorepo root omitting `path` merges every project's answer. Those are real behavioral traits affecting how the agent calls it.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the returned contract is listed first, then the usage trigger, then name formats, then monorepo behavior. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the single unstructured paragraph is a bit heavy for the amount of information packed into it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still previews what the contract contains. With 100% parameter coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the `path` parameter is already well documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by disclosing that `Card.Header` is an acceptable `name` form (the schema only shows 'Button'/'CardHeader') and by restating the project-scoping semantics of `path`.

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+resource ('Get the full contract of one component') and then enumerates the contract contents: import, typed props with defaults, cva variants and applied classes, parts, tokens, guidelines and examples. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_components and search_components, which cannot return a full single-component contract.

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?

'Call it before using a component' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the monorepo `path` sentence explains the situation in which the extra argument is needed. It does not explicitly name list_components/search_components as the alternatives, but the single-vs-many distinction is unambiguous from the purpose sentence.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context that results include resolved dark-mode values and per-token usage guidance, which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination, result-size limits, or how monorepo path scoping behaves, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and result shape, then filters, then usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description correctly focuses on selection and usage. Combined with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, this is largely complete. Minor gap: no mention of result-size or how the path parameter behaves in monorepos appears in the description, though the schema covers it.

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 fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the category enum values and the substring filter, adding only marginal meaning 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (design tokens) and enumerates what each result carries: resolved values, dark-mode values, and usage guidance. An agent can distinguish this from list_components or search_components without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for the output: 'Use these instead of hex codes, px values or Tailwind default palette classes.' It also names filter mechanisms. However, it does not name a sibling alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the per-component fields returned (description, native element, variants, parts, import) and the monorepo aggregation behavior. It does not discuss ordering or size of results, but the output schema presumably covers shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to call it, then the monorepo edge case. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no padding.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, timing, and the monorepo scoping rule. Return-value explanation is a bonus since the output schema already exists.

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% and the single `path` parameter is fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the monorepo/`path` behavior (project of the file being edited) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("List") and resource ("every component in the project design system"), plus a precise enumeration of what each entry contains. The scope (all components vs the single-item get_component or filtered search_components) is inferable, but the description never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Call this before writing UI in this project" gives clear when-to-use context, and the monorepo scoping note tells the agent how to invoke it correctly across projects. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with search_components or get_component, so no exclusions/alternatives are stated.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the ranking is BM25 over names, descriptions, docs, props and variant values, and runs locally with no API key, corroborating and enriching the openWorldHint=false claim.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and intent framing, examples inline, and the usage condition placed last. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. Purpose, ranking mechanism and usage condition are all covered; only explicit sibling routing is missing, which is a minor gap for a three-parameter discovery tool.

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 query, path (monorepo scoping) and limit. The description adds no syntax, format or scoping detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find components') plus the intent-based framing with concrete query examples like "confirm a destructive action" and "text field with validation". It distinguishes itself from get_component implicitly by describing intent-based discovery, but never names list_components or get_component as the alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it when you do not know which component fits.' That clearly frames the discovery scenario, but it offers no when-not guidance and never names a sibling (e.g. use list_components for a full inventory) to route the agent between tools.

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