get_design_context

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

Although readOnlyHint=true is already in annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond it: the default return shape, the category-detail behavior, tokenCategory filtering semantics, and notably the error behavior ('unknown/aliased categories return an actionable error, not a silent empty result'). It also reinforces 'Read-only, no side effects,' which aligns with the annotation. No contradiction.

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 information-dense with a logical flow: purpose, safety disclaimer, default return, category options, tokenCategory filter with error behavior, usage positioning, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter enumerations make it longer than necessary. Well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Comprehensive for an overview tool: default return contents, category values, tokenCategory values, error behavior, and usage positioning are all covered, with no output schema to fall back on. The main gap is pagination semantics for limit and offset, which remain unexplainable given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it compensates well for two parameters: category (explicit value list: 'all' | 'tokens' | 'components' | 'conflicts' | 'diagnostics') and tokenCategory (exact filter values: colors, spacing, sizes, typography, borderRadius, shadows, zIndex, breakpoints, motion). However, limit and offset are completely unaddressed in both the bare schema (only type/min/max) and the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Get the resolved design system context before building UI.' It clearly explains what the tool returns (a summary of token counts, component names, conflict counts, diagnostics, and contract metadata) and explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting 'For lookups by name, use get_token or get_component instead.' An agent can immediately distinguish this overview tool from the lookup tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this as the first call to understand what exists.' It also provides clear when-not-to-use direction with named alternatives ('For lookups by name, use get_token or get_component instead'). This is exemplary routing behavior that leaves nothing to inference.

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