silhouette_get_design

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. What the description does contribute is the content of the response ('all shapes and canvas properties'), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of saying whether the payload is large, paginated, or costly to fetch.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler or repetition. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 simple one-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is close but leaves the identifier format unspecified, which is a real invocation risk. It adequately covers return content but not the input needed to call 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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage: the schema says merely 'design: string', and the description adds nothing about whether that is an ID, a name, or a path. With a single undocumented identifier this is the one place the description needed to compensate and did not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full raw JSON data of a design') and scopes the payload ('all shapes and canvas properties'). This is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby silhouette_describe_design, so the read-summary vs raw-dump boundary is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must guess from the word 'raw' that this is the programmatic full-payload read rather than a human-readable description.

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