ux_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses that each call reads the nearest project's uxlint.design.json, only explicitly approved decisions guide edits, and it warns against auto-approving or rewriting the contract. This gives an agent realistic expectations about read-only, project-scoped behavior.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with purpose and timing, then packs useful specifics about covered topics and the lint-rule loop. It is somewhat long and runs several ideas into one block, but every section contributes actionable guidance.

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 is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and act on the result: it explains what the tool reads, what areas it covers, how it relates to lint rules, and how it fits with audit_url. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is a minor gap given the tool's guidance role.

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?

The input schema already documents the single topic parameter at 100% coverage, including defaults, examples, aliases, and fallback behavior. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action (read guidance before building/changing UI) and a resource (project design memory / uxlint.design.json). It clearly distinguishes its role from siblings by framing it as the pre-build step in the loop that ends with audit_url.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('read BEFORE building or changing UI') and gives a workflow: read the topic, build to it, then confirm with audit_url. It does not enumerate when to prefer siblings like get_shot, but the sequencing and the warning about not rewriting the contract provide strong usage context.

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