Get design.md for a style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers one genuinely useful disclosure: the default response is the entire document, truncated on a structural boundary. That truncation semantics is non-obvious and would otherwise surprise an agent. It does not address read-only status or caching (refresh is only covered in the schema), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter guidance. Every clause carries actionable information (what it renders, why to pass `sections`, what happens without it).

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 three-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the output (a design.md document, possibly truncated) and the parameter-driven scoping. The only meaningful gap is that cache/refresh behavior and read-only nature are left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it frames `sections` as a budget-control mechanism and states the fallback behavior when it is omitted. The schema's enum list and the default are documented structurally; the description supplies the rationale and the truncation consequence.

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 names a concrete verb and output artifact: 'Render a style as a design.md document.' That is more specific than the sibling refero_get_style, since it tells the agent the result is a markdown document rather than a raw style record. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource/format is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of staying 'within budget' hints that this tool is for budget-sensitive section retrieval, and the default whole-document behavior is noted. There is no explicit when-to-use versus refero_get_style or refero_search_styles, and no stated preconditions, so guidance remains inferential.

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