get_design_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, does not describe output shape or size, and does not disclose behavior for missing or invalid nodes. The note that it returns styles, components, and layout gives some content expectation but not enough behavioral detail.

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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the relevant content categories. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and six sibling tools with overlapping concepts, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, whether multiple node IDs are accepted (despite the schema pattern allowing semicolon-separated values), or how this differs from get_metadata and get_section_frames.

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 two required parameters are already documented with types and patterns. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail, but per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a distinct resource ('design context') while enumerating concrete content types: styles, components, and layout. It is not a tautology and is somewhat differentiated from siblings like get_metadata, though 'design context' remains broad and overlapping.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. The only contextual clue is 'for a node,' which implies scope but does not distinguish it from get_section_frames, get_flow_map, or get_metadata.

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