Get the user's design choices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the waiting=true behavior, the requirement to retry, and the side effect of advancing to blueprint phase when all four choices exist. This goes beyond a simple 'reads selections' statement.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, waiting behavior, and completion condition. Front-loaded and free of waste.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and behavior. Missing a bit of detail on the exact return contents, but the purpose and workflow are clear enough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the projectId parameter. It does not mention projectId at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context. This is a gap.

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 reads the user's design choices from the design gallery. The verb 'reads' and resource 'selections' distinguish it from sibling tools like set_design_choice and launch_design_gallery.

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?

Provides clear guidance on handling waiting states: if waiting=true, ask the user to finish and call again. It also implies this is the correct poll/read tool after the user interacts with the gallery, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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