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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output is metadata only (not pattern bodies), follows 'the one-page protocol' with specific constraints (density wave pacing, one GL spectacle, 12–18 viewport-heights), and that it returns an act map. This gives the agent an idea of what to expect. However, it doesn't clarify if the tool makes any external calls, whether it has side effects, or whether any inputs are destructive—but as a design tool, this is likely non-destructive. The description adds decent context but lacks depth on edge cases.

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 three sentences, each dense with meaning. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with output structure and design constraints, and ends with a clear call-to-action (feed to get_pattern). Every sentence earns its keep with zero filler.

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 tool has 6 parametersholistic, an output schema absent, and no annotations, the description covers the core output format, the design protocol constraints, and the recommended downstream step. It doesn't explain how to interpret the density rating or act purposes in detail, but that may be understood from the get_pattern context. The description is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand the tool's role in the design pipeline, though some implementation details (like error handling) are not covered.

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 the schema already documents all parameters: intent, acts, seed, history, exclusions, and direction_id. The description adds value by explaining the output format (act map) and its relationship to get_patternable, but it doesn't enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. For example, it doesn't explain the interplay between acts and direction_id beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Design' and defines the resource as 'a complete page from intent.' It clearly states what the tool does: produce a page design plan with acts, patterns, and density ratings. It also differentiates it from siblings by stating it 'Returns metadata only' and explicitly says to feed output to get_pattern for code.

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 strong context: use this tool to design a page, and then 'Feed the result straight to get_pattern to retrieve the code.' It names a sibling (get_pattern) and describes the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use this one. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but exclusions are not stated.

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