design_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. It discloses that this is a guide/reference resource and hints at structured content (conflict precedence, critique protocol), which implies a read-only retrieval, but it never states the return shape, whether the guide is paged, or how large the payload is.

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 compact sentences, with the tool's identity front-loaded and the usage instruction trailing. The parenthetical reference list (impeccable, taste, UI UX Pro Max, brand DESIGN.md) is slightly noisy but does signal the scope of content covered.

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 two-parameter guide tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the entry-point case but leaves offset paging and topic-scoped retrieval behavior unexplained. Adequate to start, not enough to invoke correctly on subsequent calls.

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 must compensate. 'Call first without topic' usefully tells the agent that topic is optional and should be omitted on the initial call, but the offset parameter (paging) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 the resource (a UI/UX design harness guide) and enumerates its content: workflow, conflict precedence, critique protocol, and references. An agent can tell this is the documentation/entry-point tool rather than a search or render tool, though the wording is noun-phrase heavy and lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'loads'.

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?

'Call first without topic' gives an explicit, actionable usage instruction that routes the agent to this tool before the siblings. It does not name the alternatives (design_search, design_direction) or state when a topic-scoped call is warranted, so guidance is clear but not complete.

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