Get design review rubric

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the 'Read-only' sentence is partly redundant. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the kit prompt is deliberately NOT included, kit_prompt_url is a human-readable page, omitted_fields is reported, and passing inputs merely records them rather than triggering evaluation. That is real disclosure beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with purpose, then exclusion, then behavior, then return shape – a sensible order with no filler sentences. The enumerated return-field list is heavy, but since there is no output schema it earns its place by preventing guesswork about the response.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return value and does so field-by-field, including which fields may be omitted. Combined with the routing guidance and annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it tells the agent that artifact/purpose/context/rules are simply recorded in 'inputs', that all are optional, and that rules defaults to the current contract version. That is semantic value the schema alone does not convey.

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 verb and resource ('Get the Designesy Design Review rubric') and immediately scopes it as a qualitative critique rubric with eight named dimensions. It explicitly differentiates itself from the numeric sibling by noting it is 'a rubric, not a number', so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('when you want a structured rubric to critique a design holistically') and a when-NOT-to-use that names the alternative tool ('for a deterministic numeric score, use designesy_score'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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