Get the full structured payload for one reference: source URL, categories, tags, colors, typography, layout pattern, component rules, imagery, motion, do/don't constraints, and agent implementation notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference_id | Yes | Reference id from search_references | |
| response_format | No | Return markdown or structured JSON |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval and lists the return contents, which is helpful. However, it does not mention the default response format (md vs json) or any error/edge-case behavior, leaving some ambiguity beyond the 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?
A single dense sentence communicates a lot of information without fluff. The long list of payload contents could be slightly more scannable, but each item earns its place and there is no 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 description adequately explains what the tool returns and the parameters are well-documented in the schema. For a simple get operation, it covers the essentials, though it lacks an explicit note about response_format defaults and how this fits into the overall workflow with siblings.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters (reference_id, response_format). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('full structured payload for one reference') and enumerates the exact contents (source URL, categories, colors, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_references or get_similar_references, which likely return lists or summaries.
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 context is implied (e.g., after search_references, as the schema notes reference_id comes from there), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance or names alternatives. It simply says what the tool does without exclusions.
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.