Get DESIGN.md for a theme

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, writes nothing to disk, returns the text. It also explains the 403 response for entitled Pro kits without leaking the brief, covering error and security behavior comprehensively.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: content overview, usage context, read-only guarantee, and auth behavior. It is logically structured and free of redundancy.

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 one-parameter fetch tool, this description covers the document's contents, when to use it, side effects (none), and auth/error behavior. No critical context is missing, even in the absence of an output schema.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including detailed guidance on slug vs id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and its 'by slug' phrasing is slightly narrower than the schema's id-or-slug, but this does not reduce the baseline score.

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 it fetches the complete DESIGN.md brief for a design kit by slug, enumerating the document's contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling writer tools like apply_theme and other get_* tools by positioning DESIGN.md as the design source document.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Read it before implementing a kit, or when the user wants to review a direction before committing to it.' It also names apply_theme as the alternative that writes, providing a clear when-not-to-use signal.

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