get_design_craft_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and 'design rules' clearly signal a read-only advisory tool, and the 'before creating any design' phrasing reinforces that no document mutation occurs. It does not describe the return format or length, but those are minor for a static guide.

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 short, information-dense sentences. The first front-loads the content scope, and the second adds a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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, parameterless guide-retrieval tool, the description tells the agent what to expect (professional design rules by category) and when to call it. It could mention the expected response format, but this is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a concrete action ('Get') on a specific resource ('professional design rules') and enumerates the content areas (typography, color, spacing, anti-AI-slop patterns). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from mutation tools like set_fill or create_style_guide, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

'Use this before creating any design' is an explicit timing directive that tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but for a parameterless advisory guide, this guidance is sufficient.

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