get_design_prompt_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful facts: the output is markdown and it is 'regenerated from live data on every call,' signaling non-cached, dynamic output. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, size, failure modes, or what the 'latitude contract' entails, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before elaborating on structure. It is reasonably efficient with no filler, though the run-on sentence structure packs several ideas together and could be split for readability.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by detailing the return content (anchor sheet, component sheets, page prompts, latitude contract). The main gap is the absence of usage guidance and clarification of the 'latitude contract' term, but for a read-only retrieval tool of moderate complexity it covers the essentials.

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 description coverage is 100%, so designId and handoffKey are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('get design prompt pack') and describes the returned content in detail (markdown, anchor sheet, component sheets, page prompts). It implies differentiation from the sibling get_design_handoff by describing a prompt pack rather than a handoff, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance is given. The phrase 'app-authored sequential Claude Design prompt pack' hints at a context but never states when the agent should pick this over get_design_handoff or get_agent_prompt. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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