get_design_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'returns' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's non-destructive or require any permissions. It also doesn't mention any rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 in Portuguese that immediately states what the tool returns. There is no fluff or redundancy—every word contributes to the purpose.

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 one parameter fully documented in the schema, the description provides a clear high-level overview of the return value (tokens, fonts, Tailwind config). It lacks explicit notes on output structure or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it covers the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter (system_id) by listing all valid values. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the concept of a system ID or how to choose one. Since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('returns') and specific resources (HEX tokens, Google Fonts typography, Tailwind configurations) for a particular visual aesthetic. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_design_systems, but the specificity of what it returns makes its purpose evident.

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 that list_design_systems should be used to discover available systems or that this tool is for retrieving details of a specific system. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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