Page Design Guide MCP

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'detailed design specs' but doesn't specify format, size, or structure of the output. It also doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is vague about what 'best practices' entail, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Returns detailed design specs for UI components') and adds specific examples and context without waste. Every word earns its place, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns 'detailed design specs.' It lacks information on output format, data structure, or examples, which are crucial for an AI agent to understand what to expect. The complexity of design specs warrants more detail than provided.

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 100%, with the parameter 'component' fully documented in the schema (type, description, enum values, optionality). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of output for each component type. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Returns detailed design specs for UI components' with specific examples (buttons, cards, forms, navigation) and mentions 'modern 2026 best practices.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on UI components rather than accessibility, animation, color, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get_section_guidance' might overlap).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_layout_patterns' or 'get_section_guidance' that might be relevant for UI design. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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