Creadal

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds the valuable consequence that the optional product photo consumes one AI image from the member's plan, and that output is written into the member's Creadal account. It does not cover error/retry behavior or how long generation takes, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then outputs then the model-selection hint. It is efficient, but the long mid-sentence enumeration of outputs is slightly cluttered.

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 15-parameter generative tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral bits (what is produced, where it lands, the AI-image cost, how to pick the model). It lacks a note on the supported language enum being reflected in generated text and on failure/quota exhaustion handling, but is otherwise solid.

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 all 15 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds semantic color to model (use list_packaging_models) and product_photo (costs one AI image), leaving the other 13 to the schema, which is the correct 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 states a specific verb (create/design) and resource (packaging design) and enumerates exactly what comes back: laid-out design, preview picture, 3D look, print PDF link, editor link. It is distinguishable from siblings such as export_print_pdf or generate_dieline because it produces the whole design rather than one artifact.

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 tells the agent to pick the model via list_packaging_models (id or slug), which is a concrete routing instruction, and frames the tool as a generative create step. It does not state exclusions, such as when to use ready_design versus a fresh generation or when not to call it, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the description is free to add the higher-value facts: the required 'export' scope and the shape of the return (share URL plus ?embed=1 iframe URL). It does not discuss revocation, expiry enforcement, or collision on repeat calls, so it stops short of fully resolving the non-idempotent hint.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and its configurable surface, the second front-loads the return contract and the scope prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return values (share URL and iframe URL), and it covers the auth prerequisite and all five parameters. It omits lifecycle details — whether links can be revoked, what happens on expiry, or how multiple links per design behave — which would round out a creation tool.

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, and the description largely restates those same fields (view/comment/edit, password, expiry, audience label). Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds the analytics framing for 'label' but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a share link for a design') and enumerates the configurable dimensions (mode, password, expiry, audience label). It is clearly a distinct resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, export_design, which it is related to via the shared 'export' 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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the scope note, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. export_design) for related needs. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond the annotations: the exports are server-side, they are fetched with the same Authorization bearer key, and the call requires the 'export' scope.

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 core action, zero wasted words. The auth and scope constraints follow efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the return value (download URLs), the auth model, and the required scope, which is ample without an output schema. The one gap is the missing routing guidance relative to export_print_pdf.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents designId fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get download URLs for a design's server-side exports (PDF and PNG).' It clarifies the output format, but it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling export_print_pdf, leaving ambiguity about which export tool to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though export_print_pdf is an obvious candidate for confusion. The agent must infer the choice between the two export tools entirely on its own.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real weight here. It discloses the 24-hour validity window, that the result is a download link (not the file itself), and that both a PDF and a PNG are returned – all useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core deliverable (download link, print-ready PDF) and folds in the expiry and secondary output without waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the return (a link, plus PNG, valid 24 hours). It is nearly complete; only the absence of any mention of link regeneration or permission requirements keeps it from a 5.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents designId fully. The description adds no format, ID-type, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable: a download link for a design's print-ready PDF plus a PNG. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like get_design_file and export_design by specifying 'print-ready PDF', though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 trailing clause 'to send to a printer or keep' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over export_design or get_design_file. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the return format (PDF and SVG links) in the absence of an output schema, plus the fact that no account is required. It does not discuss rate limits or size failures, but discloses enough to call safely.

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 key action and output are front-loaded in the first clause, and the per-kind size mapping is compact and scannable. The marketing touch ('Same engine as the free dieline generator on creadal.com', 'Free, no account needed') is mildly promotional but still tells the agent there is no auth barrier.

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?

With 8 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers what is needed: the required kind enum, the applicable dimensions per kind, the returned artifact format, and the absence of account requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely exceeds it by mapping dimensions to each kind (box = length/width/height, label = diameter/height, pouch/sack = width/height/gusset, pillow = width/height/depth). This conditional mapping is not stated in the schema, where parameter descriptions are generic across kinds.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (print-ready dieline with cut/fold lines and bleed) for five named package kinds, and declares the deliverables (PDF and SVG links). An agent can distinguish this from create_packaging_design or export_design without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'give the size ... and get its dieline' and the per-kind dimension mapping, which tells the agent which inputs apply. However, it never names when to prefer this over siblings such as create_packaging_design or list_packaging_models, and states no exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'no account needed'.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds material beyond that: sync vs. async behavior with the polling path, the composition of the output (laid-out text, theme, speaker notes), where per-slide images come from, and an auth prerequisite ('generate' scope). It still does not mention cost/quota implications despite a get_quota sibling, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact, then the sync/async contract, then output composition and scope. It is dense and largely waste-free, though the unexplained 'creadal editor' reference is an internal term that adds little for an agent and could confuse.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining the two return modes and that a job must be polled via get_job, plus what the composed deck contains. It remains a bit thin on what the job/result object actually returns, but for a 9-parameter tool with 89% schema coverage it is close to complete.

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 high at 89%, so the schema already carries the parameter burden, including the themeId, templateId, designType, motion, and sources semantics. The description adds essentially no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond a passing reference to theme selection, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Generate a complete, editable presentation') and immediately expands the artifact scope to document/poster/social set, so the agent knows it produces multiple design types rather than decks alone. It also distinguishes itself from the get_job sibling by explaining the asynchronous handoff, so it is identifiable without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance: the tool may return synchronously or hand back a job for get_job polling, which tells the agent how to handle both outcomes, and it names the required 'generate' scope. It does not state when to prefer this over alternative generation paths or when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what comes back (title, preview picture, editor link, print PDF link), but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown, ownership permissions, or any rate limits.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key distinguishing word ('One of the member's designs') is front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a full action statement, which slightly weakens the lead.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents, which is exactly the burden it must carry. It stops short of covering failure modes (missing/inaccessible design) for a lookup tool, leaving a small but real gap.

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% for the single designId parameter, so the schema already documents origin and requiredness. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond implying the design belongs to the member, which is the baseline 3 for schema-covered params.

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 makes clear this returns a single design belonging to the member (title, preview, editor link, print PDF link), which an agent can distinguish from list_my_designs by the singular scope. It never states an explicit retrieval verb, so the action is inferred from the title and schema rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given in the description. The hint about where designId comes from (list_my_designs or create_packaging_design) lives in the schema's parameter description, not here, and related siblings like get_design_file or export_design are never contrasted.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that large files are summarized rather than inlined (an output-shape caveat an agent must anticipate) and states the 'read' scope authorization requirement.

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?

Dense, front-loaded sentences: verb+resource first, then payload contents, then the summarization caveat and auth requirement. No filler text; every clause conveys information an agent needs.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned file's contents and disclosing the summarization fallback. Nothing critical is missing; only the relationship to sibling retrieval/export tools is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (designId) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully; the description adds no format, source, or naming guidance for it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a design's open-format file) and enumerates what the payload contains: pages, nodes, theme, speaker notes. This differentiates it from the sibling get_design, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the contrast is inferable rather than stated.

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 'Requires the read scope' line and the summarization behavior imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against siblings like get_design or export_design. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a completed generation job's result carries designId and editorUrl, which is important since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key return-value note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the result fields (designId, editorUrl) for completed generation jobs. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning export-job result fields or status values, but it is adequate for a simple one-parameter poll.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains it is the job id returned by generate_presentation. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (poll) and resource (generation or export job by id), which cleanly distinguishes it from action siblings like generate_presentation or export_design. It stops short of naming which sibling produces the job, though the schema covers that.

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?

Polling implies the tool is used after kicking off a job, and the schema notes the jobId comes from generate_presentation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any note about polling cadence or stopping conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the response is period-scoped ('what is left of it this period') and enumerates the metered resources (AI images, AI video seconds) plus an upgrade link.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core subject (the plan and what remains). The nested parenthetical of metered resources is slightly dense but earns its place by specifying the returned units.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so adequately (plan, remaining images, remaining video seconds, upgrade link). Missing only period definition (monthly?) and whether the figure refreshes, which are minor for a read-only quota check.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify in terms of input arguments.

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 names a specific resource (the member's Creadal plan) and states exactly what is returned: remaining AI images and AI video seconds for the period, plus an upgrade link. It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, which are design/job/export operations.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer it is used to check remaining quota before AI generation, but the description never says when to call it or what it replaces. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — ordering (newest first), workspace scoping, and that each item carries an editor link. However, it says nothing about pagination or how the 'latest' set is bounded by the limit parameter, leaving a behavioral gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and workspace scope, then appends ordering and return contents. No filler; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by describing what each returned item contains (an editor link). With only one optional parameter and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete; a note on pagination/limit behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional limit parameter (1-50, default 20) fully documented in the schema. The description's 'latest' hints at recency but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('the member's latest Creadal designs in the connected workspace'), states ordering (newest first), and describes the return shape (a link to open each in the editor). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_templates, list_themes, and get_design, though the list verb itself is only implied.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like get_design for a single design or list_templates for reusable templates. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the browse-my-designs entry point.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not: auth is not required ('no account needed') and it discloses the shape of each returned item (sizes, photo-real preview, page). It omits pagination/result-count behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Browse the packaging you can design') and then the workflow hook. The long item enumeration is informative but heavy; it roughly duplicates the category parameter values, keeping it short of a 5.

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 read-only catalog with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers return contents, auth, and downstream purpose. Missing only pagination/ordering details, which matter for an unbounded list endpoint.

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 query, category and language are already fully documented with examples and enum values. The description's category enumeration mirrors the schema's category list rather than adding format or usage nuance, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (browse the packaging models available on Creadal) and enumerates the catalog contents so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names create_packaging_design as the downstream consumer, which separates it from sibling list tools like list_templates and list_themes.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: use it to pick a model for create_packaging_design or to preview what is possible. It does not, however, contrast itself against the other catalog-listing siblings (list_templates, list_themes), so an agent choosing among list endpoints gets no exclusion guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are scoped to the calling key's workspace (implying permission-dependent results), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering. With light annotations, the description adds some value without fully carrying the behavioral burden.

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, no filler: the first establishes scope, the second establishes the follow-up action. Scope is front-loaded and the actionable guidance comes second.

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 single optional parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the reason to call it. It stops short of describing what a returned record contains (id, name, theme, layout system), which would help an agent consume the result, but it is adequate overall.

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?

There is one optional parameter ('query') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not mention the search parameter at all, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the templates') plus the scope of what is returned ('visible to this key's workspace (built-ins and workspace templates)'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_themes or list_packaging_models, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context by naming the downstream consumer: pass an id as generate_presentation's templateId. That tells the agent exactly when this tool is needed, though there are no exclusions or negative conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds catalog contents and the consumer relationship, but doesn't describe ordering, pagination, or response shape. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action (list), then lists catalog fields, then adds the key integration note. No wasted 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?

For a zero-param read-only catalog tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs: what's returned and how to use the id elsewhere. Return format details are minor omissions.

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?

Parameter count is 0, so baseline is 4. No parameters are discussed, and none are needed.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the built-in theme catalog'. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, style group, palette slots, font pair), distinguishing it from list_templates and list_packaging_models.

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 explicitly ties this tool to a consumer: 'Pass an id as generate_presentation's themeId.' That clarifies the downstream use case well. It lacks a clear when-not-to-use or statement about alternatives, but the workflow linkage gives solid context.

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