Ready-to-paste CSS for a direction: custom properties (palette + fonts), button/card/nav treatments, grain texture, Google Fonts import, and the matched motion recipe list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Or describe the business/vibe and the best pack is chosen | |
| direction | No | Direction pack id (e.g. terminal-grade) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the output is ready-to-paste CSS, which implies a read/generation operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not require special permissions, or describe any edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens with unknown direction IDs).
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core value proposition ('Ready-to-paste CSS for a direction') followed by a concise, organized list of included elements. Every clause adds useful detail, with no fluff 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?
The tool has only two parameters, both well-documented in the schema, and no output schema, so the description's detailed enumeration of the returned CSS elements provides good context. It could be more complete with an example or clarification of how 'query' and 'direction' interact, but for a low-complexity asset retrieval tool it is adequate.
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 input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for both parameters ('direction' and 'query'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond noting the output is for a direction, which partially aligns with the 'direction' parameter but does not enhance the schema 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 clearly identifies the tool as producing a ready-to-paste CSS asset pack for a given design direction, enumerating specific contents (custom properties, button/card/nav treatments, texture, fonts, motion recipe list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual components or generic design directions, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.
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 phrase 'for a direction' implies the tool should be used when a complete CSS bundle for a specific design direction is needed. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_component_code or get_motion_recipes, and provides no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: build_from_reference and build_from_reference_v2 serve nearly the same purpose, make_it_standout and polish_and_prove overlap heavily, and get_design_direction, synthesize_direction_from_references, and build_from_reference_v2 all produce design directions. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_design_direction, search_references, watch_site). Minor deviations like client_report, make_it_standout, and polish_and_prove are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.
30 tools is too many for a design toolkit, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Many 'get' tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_hero_concept, get_motion_recipes, get_asset_pack could be one tool). The count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.
The tool set covers the full design/build/critique/report/watch lifecycle well, from direction and sections to client reports and site monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit 'update' or 'delete' for references), but these are not critical to the core workflow.