lint_handoff_readiness

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

The verb 'scans' implies read-only behavior, but with no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action and lists specific issue categories without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 clearly scopes what the tool scans but does not explain what the tool returns or any behavioral constraints. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this missing information leaves the description incomplete for fully understanding 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond listing issue types, so it does not exceed 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's action ('Scans a Figma page or subtree') and specifies a concrete list of handoff issues it detects. This differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_accessibility or extract_design_tokens, which have different focuses.

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 a use case (checking engineering handoff readiness) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. It relies on the user to infer the appropriate context.

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