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 states that the tool 'retrieves' principles, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or if the retrieval is cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 key action ('Retrieves core UI/UX principles') and adds clarifying details ('hierarchy, whitespace, contrast') and purpose ('to ensure visual quality'). Every part earns its place with no wasted words, 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the minimum viable level.

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 the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('core UI/UX principles'), and it lists examples of what those principles include (hierarchy, whitespace, contrast). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_layout_patterns' or 'get_holistic_design_review', which might also relate to design principles or guidance.

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 its many siblings, such as 'get_accessibility_guidance' or 'get_color_guidance'. It mentions the purpose ('to ensure visual quality'), but this is vague and doesn't help an agent decide between alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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