design_mistakes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Report' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, whether it requires prior steps (e.g., a design must exist), or whether it might return stale data. The behavioral implications are only implicit, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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, compact sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key action ('Report validation defects') and the scope ('this design'). It earns high marks for efficiency, though the brevity borders on under-specification, which is why it is not a 5.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and the deliverable. However, it lacks context about the design lifecycle, what constitutes a 'validation defect', and how this tool relates to siblings like design_record_result or design_lesson_decide. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not fully equip an agent to call it correctly in a broader workflow.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining design_id. It only alludes to 'this design' without clarifying how to obtain or format the identifier, what values are valid, or any relationship to other design tools. The parameter is left as an opaque string, providing minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 verb 'report' and resource 'validation defects' are specific, and the phrase 'this design corrected or still carries' indicates the scope is tied to a particular design. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like design_status or design_list, which focus on status or listing rather than defect reporting. A minor ambiguity is what 'validation defects' exactly encompasses, but the core purpose is clear.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any exclusions (e.g., 'use design_status for overall health'). An agent must rely on the tool name and vague wording to decide when to call it, which is insufficient.

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