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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's role as a mandatory prerequisite, the need to ask the user about icon library, and the consistency requirement with review_generated_code. It clearly lists what the tool returns, making its behavior transparent. No side effects are relevant for a guidelines read tool.

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 dense paragraph but each sentence is purposeful: it front-loads the mandatory call, provides concrete rules and parameters, and gives an explicit instruction to ask the user. 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?

Given two parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it tells what it returns, how to invoke for specific topics, and how it relates to other tools. It even covers user interaction steps.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains the iconLibrary parameter's default, supported values, and the need to pass the same value to review_generated_code. It also clarifies that topic='patterns' returns the generation checklist specifically. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states it is the mandatory first call before writing any @marmoui/ui code and returns a generation checklist, critical rules, component patterns, and icon library rules. This clearly defines its purpose and differentiates it from siblings like get_design_md and get_pattern by establishing it as the entry point.

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 instructs when to call (before writing any code), what to do first (ask user about icon library), and how to coordinate with review_generated_code by passing the same iconLibrary value. It also mentions topic='patterns' for a specific checklist, providing clear context for use vs alternatives.

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