get_design_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'extract' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also mentions 'compressed' and 'token-efficient format,' which are behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state safety or lack of side effects.

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 redundancy. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description explains what is returned (tokens, components, pages, constraints) and the output format variants, but does not detail the structure or presence of an output schema. Given the complexity of aggregating brand context and no output schema, this is moderately complete but could benefit from mentioning response shape.

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 description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The description does not elaborate on parameter values or provide examples. Baseline 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 it extracts compressed brand context and lists specific outputs (design tokens, components, pages, layout constraints). It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_components, get_tokens, etc.) that focus on individual aspects, making the tool's aggregative purpose obvious.

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?

Explicit guidance to use this tool FIRST before any UI generation, implying it provides essential context. This also advises against using specialized tools prematurely, establishing a clear usage hierarchy.

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