audit_design_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (scans and checks) but does not disclose side effects, whether it is read-only, rate limits, or any state changes. It also does not mention what happens with unresolved issues or if it returns details. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the stated checks.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and the key checks (compliance, token consistency, WCAG AA). It avoids filler and is directly informative. Slightly more detail on output or usage could earn a 5, but it is appropriately compact.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the contextual load. It fails to mention what the audit returns (e.g., a report, list of issues, severity levels), whether it is a read-only operation, or any opinions about token sources. Given the moderate complexity of an audit tool, this is incomplete; an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior or consequences.

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%: both fileId and nodeId are described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters—it only mentions scanning an artboard, which maps to nodeId. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 scans an artboard/container specifically for design system compliance, token consistency, and WCAG AA contrast. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_design_quality_score (which computes a numeric score) and autofix_contrast_issues (which fixes issues), making the 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tools to use instead for other scenarios (e.g., extract_design_system_tokens, assert_design_rules). The agent must infer usage context solely from the purpose, which is insufficient.

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