Get CoDesign Artboard Spec

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral details: handling conflicts between css and fills, selector precedence, default includeSlices, and SCREEN_SELECTOR_REQUIRED response. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: main function, conflict resolution, usage instruction, selector logic, and parameter behavior. Front-loaded with key information, no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and limited parameter descriptions, the description covers essential behavioral aspects, selector logic, and conflict resolution. It mentions return fields (JSON with layers, text, etc.) but could benefit from specifying the output structure more clearly.

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 coverage is low (14%), but the description compensates by explaining selector parameters (screenId, objectId, screenName) and their precedence, as well as includeSlices default. It doesn't detail password or layerObjectId, but the overall context is clear.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches the official meta_url JSON with detailed design elements like layer positions, text, fills, and CSS. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's the canonical source for design-to-code and warns against using OCR/crop when this tool is available.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this before writing HTML/CSS from a CoDesign URL.' It advises against cropping/OCR and provides selector precedence. It also explains behavior for multiple screens (returns SCREEN_SELECTOR_REQUIRED). This clearly states when to use the tool and what alternatives to avoid.

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