assert_design_rules

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 does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on assertion failure (e.g., returns report, throws error), whether it requires specific permissions or file access, or any side effects. The phrase 'Executes' implies running checks but leaves the outcome and side effects unspecified.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Executes programmatic design assertions') and a compact list of supported types. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has a moderately complex schema (assertions array with many nested properties) but no output schema. The description only mentions the assertion types and the 'self-verifying' use case. It lacks essential context: what the return value is, how results are reported (pass/fail, detailed report), error handling, or examples. An agent would need more to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (fileId, assertions) are described in the schema, including nested properties. The description lists assertion types that exactly mirror the enum in the schema, adding no new meaning. It does not clarify parameter relationships, defaults (e.g., tolerancePx), or how to scope assertions. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds little beyond it.

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 executes programmatic design assertions and lists the specific types (alignment, uniform dimensions, etc.). This gives a specific verb and resource (assertions on design), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like calculate_design_quality_score and autofix_contrast_issues, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'for self-verifying agent workflows,' which is vague and doesn't specify conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer other tools like autofix_contrast_issues or calculate_design_quality_score. There is no exclusion criteria.

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