get_design_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns direct download and official links to specific resource types, which is useful, but it does not clarify authentication needs, rate limits, link validity, or whether any side effects exist.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists relevant examples without unnecessary filler. Every phrase contributes to clarifying what the tool returns.

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?

For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it says the tool returns direct download and official links and names the types of Apple Design Resources covered. No additional parameter or output-format explanation is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with a simple retrieval tool.

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 a specific verb, 'Get', and a specific resource, 'Apple Design Resources', then enumerates concrete resource types such as Figma kits, SF Symbols, app icon templates, and device bezels. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling guideline/category/topic tools by focusing on downloadable design assets and official links.

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 states what the tool retrieves but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of siblings like get_guideline, list_categories, or search_hig. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria, so usage must be inferred from the purpose alone.

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