invoke_design_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that challenges are 'dispatched' to get critique. It does not explain the response format, whether the agents are synchronous/asynchronous, any side effects, or what the actual output looks like. This is insufficient for an agent-invoking tool.

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, dense sentence with no fluff. It includes a parenthetical list of agent names, which is informative though slightly packed. The structure front-loads the verb and resource, keeping it concise.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description bears a heavy burden. It fails to explain how to choose an agentRole, what the output structure resembles, or how this differs from invoke_interactive_design_agent. The omission leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the agent personas, giving concrete options for agentRole, and implicitly linking codeSnippet to 'code optimizations.' This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, but it does not clarify other parameters like projectContext.

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 the tool dispatches design challenges to specialized AI agents, naming them explicitly (ArabicArtDirector, RTLArchitect, etc.) and listing the intended outcomes (deep design critique, strategic guidance, code optimizations). This distinguishes it from other design-related tools like anti_slop_audit or pipeline_design by focusing on agent-based consultation.

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 implies usage for design challenges requiring agent personas, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. It is not misleading but lacks direct context for choosing this tool over invoke_interactive_design_agent or other audit tools.

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