lanhu_get_design_schema

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds key behavioral context: auto-degradation for large responses, platform-neutral coordinates, and retention of hidden/zero-size nodes in exact mode. No contradiction.

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 structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds necessary detail for correct usage. Some repetition could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (IR including nodes, coordinates, etc.), limitations (auto-degradation, platform-neutral), and how to use different detail modes with node_ids. It also relates to sibling tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining detail level purposes, partitioning strategy, and providing URL format examples. It clarifies the design parameter's specification methods (index, uuid, name).

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 precisely states the tool retrieves Design IR, listing specific data types (node hierarchy, coordinates, text, fonts, colors, shadows, etc.). It distinguishes itself as the primary design info source and references sibling tools for other tasks.

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?

Explicit guidance is given for when to use summary vs full vs exact detail levels, including auto-degradation of full responses. It advises using lanhu_search_design_nodes first for node location, then partitioned reading with exact mode and node_ids.

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