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 patterns and usage guidance, but does not describe key behavioral traits such as the format of the return data, whether it's static or dynamic, potential rate limits, or any authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to handle the tool's output.

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 action ('Returns standard layout patterns') and includes additional value ('and when to use them'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects. It covers the purpose and usage context, but without annotations or output schema, it should provide more on what the return looks like (e.g., list of patterns with descriptions) to fully guide the agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned the lack of inputs. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource 'standard layout patterns' along with examples (F-pattern, Z-pattern, Bento Grid). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_animation_guidance' or 'get_color_guidance' by focusing on layout patterns, but does not explicitly differentiate from 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 includes 'when to use them,' which provides clear context for usage, implying guidance on application scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_component_guidance' for more specific design elements.

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