calculate_design_quality_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'calculates' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes to the design, nor does it mention any side effects, performance characteristics, or permissions. This ambiguity could lead an agent to assume side effects or lack thereof incorrectly.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key metric categories concisely. It contains no filler or redundancy, efficiently conveying the essential 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 tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool computes and the output range. It does not explain error cases or edge behaviors, but for a straightforward scoring tool, it covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (fileId and artboardId) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning about parameter usage, format, or dependencies, keeping it at the baseline expected when the schema already covers the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('calculates') and resource ('design quality metrics'), enumerating concrete metric dimensions (8pt alignment, token coverage, WCAG contrast, layout consistency) and the output scale (0-100). It distinguishes itself from siblings like audit_design_tokens or assert_design_rules by focusing on an overall score, but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_design_tokens or assert_design_rules. The description does not mention prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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