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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is free, it reads rather than renders, it requires prior export state, and it honestly scopes the output to palette/fonts/radius/shadow with no type scale or spacing ramp yet.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, then gives the key call condition, then a scope caveat. It is appropriately sized and every sentence adds useful information for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 output schema and annotations, the description provides enough context: what is returned, when to call it, that it is read-only/free, and what it does not cover. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 thread_id and version are already documented in the schema. The description mentions exported version state but adds no parameter-specific syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a precise resource and output: design tokens behind a Studio design, including palette, fonts, radius, shadow, CSS, Tailwind v4/v3 themes, and a skill file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling rendering/export/edit tools by emphasizing that it reads a design rather than renders one.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: call once the version has been exported, so screens carries rendered proofs and exported is true. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as studio_export or studio_get, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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