design_core

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it loads content, and mentions the opt-in requirement. However, it does not specify whether it modifies state or returns data, relying on the verb 'load' to imply context loading. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main action and resource, then elaborates on contents and usage sequence. Two sentences cover all essential information without redundancy.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers its purpose, when to invoke it, and its relationship to design_layer. The opt-in flag is also disclosed. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids discussing parameters.

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 identifies the tool as loading the 'design-intelligence core' with specific contents (standard, tells principle, build non-negotiables). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool design_layer by indicating this is the first call and design_layer is a subsequent layer pull.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST when building ANY UI, website, page, component, or visual' and provides the alternative/next step: 'then pull a layer with design_layer'. Also mentions the opt-in feature (features.rag) as a prerequisite.

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