Get Design Language

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional job is to explain what happens when invoked. It does so by stating that the tool returns 'the complete spec' with rules, do/don't lists, numbers, and examples. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose error or edge-case behavior.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, return content, and usage alternatives are each front-loaded and directly useful. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter, enum-constrained read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what is fetched, what the returned spec contains, and when to use it versus relevant siblings. No output schema is present, but the description adequately explains the return value's content. There is no significant missing context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter 'language' already has a descriptive enum with concrete examples. The description lists many of the same enum values and calls the parameter a 'design language or platform design system,' but it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full reference document for one modern design language or platform design system,' and then enumerates the exact systems covered. It clearly says what is returned (rules, do/don't lists, numbers, examples), distinguishing this tool from generic search or component-level tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when you need the authoritative platform baseline before designing. It also names two direct alternatives with their conditions: get_component_guidance for a specific component and get_design_roadmap for whole-project planning. This leaves little ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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