get_apple_design_examples

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description usefully adds that the return payload is base64 image blocks with MIME types, information absent from any structured field. It omits failure modes, rate limits, or behavior when a URL yields no images.

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, front-loaded with the primary outcome and output format, with zero filler. The second sentence is a compact enumeration of supported input kinds that earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, explaining the image-block return is valuable, but with four all-optional parameters there is no guidance on how url, query, and resourceId interact or which takes precedence. For a tool whose invocation hinges on picking the right input mode, that gap matters.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented (url, limit, query, resourceId). The description adds no syntax, format, or mutual-exclusion detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Return) and resource (Apple Design visual examples) and specifies the output form (MCP image content blocks). It is distinguishable from content-oriented siblings like get_apple_design_content, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.

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?

It hints at usage modes ('HIG images, resource thumbnails, and direct image asset URLs') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternatives across the many siblings. The agent must infer that this is the image-returning counterpart to get_apple_design_content.

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