lanhu_get_design_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the output (layer tree, tokens) but does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a read-only data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose, then lists the key outputs and target consumers. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete regarding the structure of returned data. It mentions layers and tokens but lacks detail on hierarchy or format. However, the intended audience (code generators) likely understands the format, so it meets basic needs.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (imageId and projectId). The tool description adds no extra semantic context about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns complete structured data of design documents, including layer tree with absolute coordinates and styles, plus Design Tokens. It explicitly mentions use for code generators, distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific aspects like tokens or annotations.

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 implies usage for code generation and retrieving full design data, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use it. Given the sibling list includes tools for annotations, tokens, and design details, the context is clear enough for an experienced agent to infer appropriate usage.

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