Get the WunderUI DESIGN.md

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only, single-document nature and that the output is a markdown doc, but says nothing about size/verbosity, whether the full document is large, cost, or that a targeted section is cheaper — relevant for a document this broad.

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 tight sentences, content list first, trigger second — well front-loaded with no filler. Slightly overlong on the enumeration, but every item adds 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?

For a zero-required-param, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what the returned document contains and when to fetch it, which is most of what is needed. The missing piece is that the document can be requested per-section and how this aggregate relates to the granular sibling tools.

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 documents the single `section` parameter at 100% coverage with a thorough enum description, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions sectioning at all and in fact frames the tool as returning "the complete design context as one markdown document," which nudges an agent away from the cheaper partial fetch.

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?

States a specific resource (the complete DESIGN.md) and enumerates its contents — install steps, rules, tokens, component inventory with props, starters — so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is implicitly the aggregate counterpart to list_components/get_tokens/get_instructions, though it never names those to draw the distinction explicitly.

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?

"Pull this once at the start of a build" gives a clear trigger and implies idempotence, which is useful. But it offers no exclusions and no routing against siblings (get_instructions, get_tokens, list_components, get_component) — an agent cannot tell from this description why it would ever pick the narrow tools instead, or vice versa.

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