design_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes what the tool returns (the full design guide) and lists its contents: the two paths, type-size tiers, font/icon library, graphics helpers, house style, and layout best practices. It also discloses the client-agnostic behavior. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the nature of 'Returns' implies no side effects, making this a strong but not perfect disclosure.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence is a directive, the second lists the guide's contents, and the third addresses a potential client-specific caveat. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read this FIRST') and contains no fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, what it contains, when to use it, and a client-specific caveat. It fully covers the purpose and usage, and the absence of output schema means no return-form documentation is needed. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, but it adds context about what the guide contains, which is relevant for the user's decision to call the tool. The schema adds nothing since it is empty, so the description compensates appropriately.

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 the tool's purpose: to return the full design guide for thermal tickets. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and distinguishes itself from sibling preview/print tools by positioning itself as the prerequisite guide, explicitly saying 'Read this FIRST before designing any thermal ticket.'

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Read this FIRST before designing any thermal ticket.' This is a direct usage directive that tells the agent to use this tool before any other design-related actions. It also notes the client-agnostic nature, clarifying it works in Claude Desktop where the Claude Code skill is not loaded, which adds important context for invocation.

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