get_design_guidelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves guidelines but doesn't describe the return format, whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved (design guidelines), for what (Base mini apps), and key content areas. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant 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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would be helpful for an agent. The simplicity of the tool means the description doesn't need extensive detail, but it could better address what the tool returns.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description mentions the same categories (colors, typography, spacing, navigation) but adds 'all' and 'components'/'app_icon' which aren't in the description text. This provides marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive design guidelines for Base mini apps'), including key content areas (colors, typography, spacing, navigation). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on design guidelines rather than code generation, validation, or other guides. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'guide' tools like get_base_account_guide or get_base_deployment_guide.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. While the tool name suggests it's for design guidelines, there's no explicit comparison to other guide-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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