get_visual_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral expectations. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, and lists the content areas. However, it does not mention permissions, return format, or potential side effects. The tool is simple and non-destructive, so the minimal disclosure is acceptable, but richer context would be beneficial.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and content scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no-parameter retrieval tool, the description adequately captures the essential information. However, the existence of sibling tools (get_brand_identity, get_tone_of_voice) introduces potential ambiguity about which tool to use, and the description does not address this. Adding a note about when to choose this tool would improve completeness.

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 input schema fully describes the interface. With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4, and there is no need for the description to elaborate on parameters.

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 ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('Code-Me visual guidelines'), and further specifies the content scope (colors, typography, logos, illustration rules). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_brand_identity, but the content list provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_brand_identity, get_tone_of_voice, get_mascota). There are no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without information on choosing the appropriate tool.

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