design_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is deterministic, has zero coupling, and does not use the Figma/Penpot API. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the audit is read-only with respect to the input design files, though the optional scaffold write is disclosed. This is a minor gap.

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 but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then adding details about inputs, outputs, and optional behavior. It avoids fluff but includes jargon such as 'Reverse bridge (RFC 0007)' which may not be immediately clear to all agents. Overall, it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool reports (specific error codes) and the optional scaffold output. It could be more explicit about the exact return format, but the description provides sufficient detail for basic usage. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers the key aspects.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (design and scaffold), covering 100% of them. The description adds extra meaning by explaining what kinds of paths design accepts (file, folder, manifest) and clarifying the scaffold's purpose as writing a draft screens fragment. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, providing valuable context.

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 opens with 'audit a design export against the contract', a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the scope by listing acceptable inputs (Figma/Penpot SVG/JSON export, folder, manifest) and the error codes it reports, clearly distinguishing it from generic audit tools. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the specific inputs and output codes make its purpose unambiguous.

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 analyzing design exports against a contract, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like coverage_report or project_audit. It provides clear context for the design parameter (file, folder, or manifest) and describes the optional scaffold behavior, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are present.

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