Get Design Examples

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

Annotations already flag read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds significant value by disclosing that screenshot images are NOT bundled and links must be opened externally. This is a non-obvious behavioral trait that prevents false expectations about inline 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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the critical image caveat is clearly separated in a NOTE. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only tool, the description covers the return shape (app/site, what works well, source link) and the key limitation (no embedded images). With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention default behavior or empty-result handling.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema for parameters; it mainly lists example query values, which is helpful but not essential since query examples already appear in the schema.

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 action ('Fetch curated real-world examples of a design pattern') and a clear resource (examples from top apps/sites), with a helpful list of pattern areas. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_design_knowledge or search_design_knowledge, though it does not explicitly name them as 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?

Usage context is implicit: an agent would call this when a user wants real-world examples of a pattern. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over related knowledge/design tools, nor state any exclusions or alternatives.

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