Get the appCN design guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the contents of the guide (tokens, rules, etc.), implying read-only behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or any side effects, but for a design guide, the content is adequately transparent.

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: the first states purpose and contents, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place. No filler.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the guide contains. It could mention the format (e.g., text, markdown) or how to access the returned data, but for a simple getter, it is largely complete.

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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the appCN design guide covering motion tokens, press-scale, haptics, variant API rules, accessibility, and a 'what NOT to do' list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component or list_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 tells when to use it: 'Read this before writing or modifying any React Native component' and advises to 'never hand-type durations or easings, reach for these tokens.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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