digital_design_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Return', which is a non-destructive action, but it does not mention any other behavioral aspects such as the exact structure of the returned data, whether the schema is static or dynamic, or any rate limiting. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate, though not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the primary purpose is stated immediately. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. It could be more explicit about the format or contents of the returned schema, but for a simple retrieval operation the essential information is present. Siblings indicate a design toolset, so the schema reference is contextually appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools; the description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('structured design schema and supported common gate pin conventions'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like digital_build_circuit or digital_inspect_circuit, which involve creating or examining circuits rather than retrieving schema definitions.

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 its usage – you call it when you need the design schema or gate pin conventions – but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any contextual guidance. There is no exclusion clause, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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