design_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Read current... state' clearly signals a non-mutating snapshot operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose freshness, authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the design must be active, though for a simple status read this is a moderate gap.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the operation verb 'Read'. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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?

The output schema exists and there is only one required parameter, so the baseline completeness is decent. However, the description fails to explain design_id or clarify when to choose design_status over design_system_status, leaving a clear gap for correct invocation.

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%, and the description never mentions design_id or how to obtain it. The required parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent gets no guidance on its meaning, format, or source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names concrete state domains: model, validation, confirmation, and lesson state. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from mutation-focused siblings like design_start, design_confirm, and design_record_result. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from design_system_status, but the listed state categories provide enough specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use design_status versus related tools such as design_system_status or design_list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection rules are provided, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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