List design kits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context (presets vs. user-saved kits flagged as saved: true, fonts bundled with macOS), but the line 'Custom kits: pass {"fonts": {...}, "colors": {...}}' is confusing on a zero-parameter tool and reads like it belongs to the consuming tools.

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?

Front-loads what a design kit is before the usage instructions, which is good structure. It is somewhat dense and repeats the 'pass the name as kit= to keynote_build_deck, keynote_apply_design or numbers_apply_design' instruction already implied earlier, costing a little efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return shape, and it correctly focuses on purpose, content and integration with the styling tools. The only gap is the ambiguous 'Custom kits' sentence, which muddies rather than completes the picture.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of passing a kit name as kit= refers to sibling tools' parameters, not this tool's, so it neither helps nor harms semantic coverage here.

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 (Lists) and resource (design kits / presets / saved kits) and describes the contents of a kit (font pairs, palettes, type scale). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like iwork_list_templates and keynote_list_themes.

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 sequencing guidance ('Use before any styling to pick a kit') and names the downstream consumers (keynote_build_deck(kit=…), keynote_apply_design, numbers_apply_design), so the agent knows why to call it. It does not, however, state any when-not condition or a true alternative to pick instead.

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