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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful output behavior by noting that the block points at DESIGN.md rather than restating it and includes a token fingerprint for drift detection. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three compact sentences deliver the purpose, usage, and unique output traits with no filler. The most important information about what the tool returns is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value's purpose, content strategy, and installation targets. The id meaning is covered by the schema, and sibling tools provide discovery context for valid themes or templates.

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 single id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about valid id values or how the id affects the generated rules block, leaving the schema's 'Theme or template id' as the only guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource: a short standing-instructions block for agent config files. It also states the block's function (forcing DESIGN.md reads before UI changes) and its drift-detection trait, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_design_md or verify_design_md.

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 gives explicit placement guidance ('Paste it whole into CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or .cursor/rules/design.mdc') and frames the intended context for use. It does not enumerate when to prefer this over get_design_md or verify_design_md, so it stops short of a 5.

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