Get a design

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuine behavioral content by describing the two response shapes and the contents of the full model ('every part with local-frame machining'). It omits error behavior (e.g. unknown design_id) and payload size/rate implications of full=true.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the default behavior (summary) and then qualifies the alternative. No wasted words and no redundancy with the schema.

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 minimal annotations, the description adequately explains the return shape and the switch that changes it. Given the low complexity (2 params, one required), only edge-case error handling is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define what full=true actually returns, which the schema does not; design_id is self-evident by name. It compensates well for the coverage gap without fully documenting both parameters.

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 ('Return') and resource ('a saved design'), and clearly distinguishes the two output modes (summary vs full JSON model). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling aikea_design or aikea_list_designs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete condition for opting into the heavier mode ('when full=true'), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over aikea_design, aikea_list_designs, or aikea_preview, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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