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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but 'Paginated' adds real operational context and the field list discloses the response shape that no output schema provides. It stops short of stating page/limit defaults or maximums, which is the only material gap.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and dense: the first defines content and return fields, the second gives the workflow. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the returned fields and the paginated nature of the call, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Remaining gaps (pagination defaults and status enum semantics) are covered by schema constraints, so the definition is complete enough for a simple read-only list.

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 50%: only projectId and status are documented inline, while page and limit rely on type/default/min/max constraints. The description implies project scoping and pagination but adds no syntax for page/limit or meaning for the DRAFT/ATTACHED/ARCHIVED enum, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (UI designs in the Design module) scoped to a project, and enumerates what each row carries: title, status, kind (SCREEN/STATES/FLOW), source story or defect, and variant count. That enumeration alone separates it from sibling list_* tools and from get_design_context.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to find a designId, then call stride.get_design_context for screens, flow and React export. The alternative and the follow-up step are both named, so the agent does not have to infer the two-stage workflow.

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