Diagnose a Tailwind class list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the diagnostics performed (nonexistent classes with spelling suggestions, arbitrary-value warnings, override detection, v3-to-v4 migration needs). It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but the problem categories give a strong behavioral picture.

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 core action ('Check a class list for every problem at once'), followed by the usage directive. Every clause earns its place by specifying a distinct diagnostic category or the invocation condition.

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 diagnostic tool with two documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the key capabilities and the invocation context well. The main gap is the lack of output-format detail (e.g., how issues are structured), which matters more because there is no output schema, but the enumerated problem categories largely compensate.

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 schema already documents both parameters with examples for the class list. The description only refers generically to 'a class list' and adds no additional syntax, format, or project-path semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description gives a precise verb (check/diagnose) and resource (a class list), and enumerates four specific problem categories. The phrase 'every problem at once' differentiates it from narrower siblings like tailwind_validate, tailwind_conflicts, and tailwind_migrate by signaling it is the comprehensive aggregate diagnostic.

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 states a clear usage context: 'This is the tool to call before writing or editing markup.' That tells an agent when to reach for it. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or explain when to use a narrower sibling instead, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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