Get the appCN design guide

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

Given no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the exact contents of the guide (motion, haptics, rules, etc.) and implies it is purely a read operation. There is no mention of side effects or permissions, but the tool is a simple reference document.

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?

Two sentences: first lists the detailed contents, second provides actionable guidance. No filler or redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and straightforward purpose, the description fully defines the tool's scope and output. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand 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, and schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 provides appCN's design guide including motion tokens, press-scale, haptics, variant API rules, accessibility requirements, and a 'what NOT to do' list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component by specifying it is about the design system for React Native components.

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 explicitly tells the agent to read this before writing or modifying any React Native component, and advises to never hand-type durations or easings but to use these tokens. It provides clear context on when to use this tool, though it does not mention specific alternatives.

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