design_get_discipline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact return shape (a dict of 'discipline' markdown and 'schema') and previews the rule content (net-label-driven wiring, datasheet-first parts, NDA isolation). It stops short of describing size, failure modes, or whether the discipline is versioned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the action and the imperative ordering, then a compact Returns block. The parenthetical rule examples slightly overlap with the Returns section but each phrase adds distinct information; nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present and zero inputs, the description is more than sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and to know what it will get back. The only missing piece is any note on staleness or cost, which is minor for a static rules read.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-param tool applies, and nothing in the description muddies it.

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: 'Read the design discipline + DesignPlan JSON schema.' It names the paired sibling (design_execute_plan) and its enforcement role, so an agent can distinguish it from design_* planner tools 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?

'ALWAYS call this first when starting a design task' gives an unambiguous activation condition tied to a clearly defined moment in the workflow. No alternative read path is named, but none is needed for a mandatory first step.

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