audit_theme_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the scanning and reference-checking behavior, which implies a non-mutating audit. However, it does not state what the tool returns, whether any files are modified, or if there are performance implications.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide methodological detail. 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and method adequately, but without an output schema or annotations, it omits what the user receives (list? count?). This leaves the description slightly incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 100% descriptive coverage for all three parameters. The description adds context about '@theme blocks' and 'source code' but does not clarify scan_dirs behavior or expected output, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool identifies dead design tokens, with a specific verb and resource. It explains the method (scanning CSS custom properties in @theme blocks) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_theme_tokens and detect_css_conflicts.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when checking for unused design tokens. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to select it over related theme tools.

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