Get design contract

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real operational context: a 5-minute server-side cache, the 100 KB / tens-of-thousands-of-tokens size of the default response, and the error behavior for unknown names (returns an error listing all valid keys). It does not cover pagination or truncation semantics for the very large payload, but the added value over annotations is substantial.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage, then the practical size/arg guidance — a sensible order. It is dense with parentheticals and a long enumeration of section names, which adds some bulk, but each sentence carries actionable information and none is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: default full JSON, the sections-filtered shape, the legacy section shape, the error shape, plus size and caching. For a read-only getter of this complexity, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the payload.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by framing the relationship between the two parameters ('section (one name) is the older form', 'Prefer sections'), contrasting their return shapes ({id, version, keys} vs {section, data}), and warning that omitting both returns the full large contract — guidance the schema fields only partially state.

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 precise verb+resource ('Get the Designesy design-system contract') and enumerates the actual contents (tokens, motion, acoustic, takt, cadence, typography, components, verification rules). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools designesy_score (pass/fail) and designesy_skill_md (export format), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Provides both sides of the decision: 'Use this when you need the actual contract values ... to author, check, or bind a design' and an explicit 'When NOT to use' clause naming the two alternatives and the condition that selects each. This is the textbook when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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