design_system_standards

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the read-only retrieval nature and the filter-vs-all behavior, but omits the alternate return shape triggered by listComponents, and gives no sense of output size, formatting, or versioning of the standards. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences with the mandatory-call warning front-loaded, followed by capability and filtering behavior. The ⚠️/REQUIRED framing is slightly emphatic but arguably functional for a required tool; no sentence is wasted.

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-optional-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main retrieval mode but leaves the listComponents branch (a distinct return shape) unexplained and does not clarify how it relates to the sibling available-components tool. Sufficient to invoke, but an agent could pick the wrong mode.

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 both parameters (component, listComponents) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter-vs-all behavior ('retrieve all standards or filter by specific component') and never addresses listComponents, so it adds little beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns design system standards and best practices, and enumerates the component coverage (buttons, cards, inputs, modals). However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like angular_component_standards or design_system_available_components, so the agent cannot tell which standards tool applies to which stack from the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Must be called before implementing design system components'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives — notably it never mentions when to prefer design_system_available_components, nor when the listComponents mode (documented only in schema) is the right call.

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