Get design playbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Return') but doesn't explicitly state idempotency, side-effect freedom, or rate limits. The lack of any behavioral caveats leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence that packs substantial content, listing key aspects of the design system. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with a usage directive. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage timing. It does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON) or explicit idempotency, but for a straightforward read tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional information about parameters is necessary.

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 it returns the design system and best-practice rules for site generation, listed specific aspects (theme tokens, spacing, etc.). The verb 'Return' and resource are precise, and it distinguishes well from sibling tools like build_site, generate_theme, and get_template.

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 says 'Read this before building,' which gives clear timing for use relative to building tools. It doesn't provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all building/generation, making the prerequisite clear.

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