verify_html_parity

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

Without annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it compares HTML vs Figma spec with tolerances, outputs JSON report and diff images. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or auth needs, but the read-only nature is implied. The output format is clearly stated.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs many details efficiently, though a bullet list for the three gates could improve scannability. No extraneous 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?

Given the complexity (18 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the tool's core function and output well. However, it omits input requirements (e.g., need for either url or html) and does not mention edge cases or resource consumption, leaving minor gaps.

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 78%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on overall behavior rather than parameter interactions (e.g., precedence rules for url, html, or spec). No parameter-specific details are provided.

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 is an 'acceptance gate' that compares rendered HTML against a Figma replica spec, detailing three specific gates (content, structural, visual) with tolerances. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_html_to_image or get_html_replica_spec, which are more limited in scope.

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 implies usage for final validation but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., compare_html_to_image). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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