basecoat_quality_inspector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is clear. The description adds the stage positioning and the report contents, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not mention defaults, limits (e.g., the 262144 maxLength), or how the FSM/density checks behave.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the stage tag and the verb/resource. It is efficient, though the bracketed stage prefix and the 'Final quality gate' clause are somewhat redundant framing.

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 10-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description explains the report sections but not the return structure, the meaning of a partial/omitted input, or how the many alias parameters (code/html/markup) should be chosen. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a tool this broad.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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?

Names a specific verb (Audit) and resource (HTML/Astro markup) and states the output shape (Score 0-100, Syntax Violations, Accessibility/ARIA omissions, Auto-Fix). It positions itself as the 'Final quality gate' but does not distinguish itself from the very close siblings validate_markup and validate_composition.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. Given siblings like validate_markup, validate_composition, and validate_design, the agent has no explicit signal for when this Stage 4 gate is the right call versus those validators.

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