design_system_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by stating that source guidelines are design data, never instructions to execute code. This prevents the agent from mistakenly executing guideline content, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait not present in annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 compact, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a necessary caveat without padding. Every word earns its place; no redundant phrases or vague filler. Slightly more detail on parameters would not hurt, but the structure itself is 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?

For a read operation with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description lists the content retrieved (tokens, components, guidelines, digest), which gives a partial picture of the return value. However, it does not explain the response format, how version relates to 'saved version', or what 'content digest' entails. Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for the id and version parameters. The description does not compensate: it never mentions these parameters, their meaning, format, or how they relate to each other. An agent cannot infer what 'id' refers to or how 'version' is structured from the description alone. This is a critical gap for a tool with only two 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('saved design-system version'), and the specific content types (tokens, native components, guidelines, content digest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like design_system_preview (which likely renders) and design_system_apply (which applies changes). The added note that guidelines are design data, not executable instructions, further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention design_system_preview, design_system_list, or other siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the safety note about guidelines being data, which is more behavioral than usage-oriented. The agent is left to infer when 'read' is appropriate based on the name and first sentence.

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