get_design_rules

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substance of what is returned (mandatory rules, 4:5 / 1080x1350 aspect ratios, zero-emoji policy, typography standards) plus the fact that these rules are mandatory rather than advisory. It is silent on return format/structure, but for a zero-parameter read-only fetch this is a strong disclosure.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated contents following immediately. The only padding is the mildly promotional 'world-class carousels', which is minor waste but not enough to hurt structure.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description needs to convey the returned content to be useful, and it does via the enumerated rule categories. The remaining gap is that it does not describe the shape/format of the returned rules, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to document or omit. The description correctly implies a single unfiltered fetch with no arguments.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('mandatory design rules') and then enumerates the actual content (aspect ratios, zero-emoji policy, typography standards), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clearly distinguishable from the list_* and render_* siblings because it describes a fixed standards payload rather than enumerating options or producing output.

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 phrase 'for creating world-class carousels' implies the context of use (fetch these rules before building a carousel), but the description never states when to call this versus list_design_primitives or the other siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied, which matches a 3.

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