Page Design Guide MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns best practices, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like response format, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits or usage context, which could be helpful for an agent in a guidance-focused server with many sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('best practices for UI animation timing, easing, and purpose'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_accessibility_guidance' or 'get_layout_patterns', which reduces the score from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other guidance tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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