get_design_language

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, rate limits, or what the return format is. The description only states it returns a 'full reference' without specifying structure or side effects.

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 a single sentence that tries to list multiple options, making it somewhat long and cluttered. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the comma-separated list reduces readability. It could be more concise and structured.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the return format and any limitations. It only says 'full reference' without clarifying whether the response is a document, a summary, or a structured object. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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 single parameter 'language' is fully covered by the input schema with an enum and description. The description adds minimal extra value beyond listing the enum values with some elaboration (e.g., 'Material 3 (& Expressive)'), but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool is a 'full reference' for specific design languages/systems, listing examples like Material 3, Apple HIG, Fluent 2, etc. It distinguishes this from sibling tools such as 'get_component_guidance' by focusing on broad language references rather than component-level guidance.

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 implies the tool is for fetching design language references, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like 'get_design_doc' or 'get_component_guidance'. No context is given on selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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