detect_smell

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (matched smells, confidence levels, suggested fixes), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of explaining matching thresholds, maximum result count, or how confidence is derived.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool does and following with what it returns. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers input purpose and return contents adequately. The only meaningful gap is the unmentioned locale parameter and its effect on results.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description reinforces the 'description' parameter's purpose but adds no format or length guidance beyond the schema example. The 'locale' parameter is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether it changes the output language or only the input interpretation.

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 ('Detect potential UX smells') plus the input basis ('based on a description of UI issues'), which cleanly separates it from lookup siblings like get_smell and list_smells. It doesn't explicitly say it is the analysis entry point versus audit_interface, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'based on a description of UI issues' implies the trigger condition: free-text complaint input rather than an existing ID. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as audit_interface or get_smell, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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