design_advisor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the tool analyzes and recommends, but fails to mention side effects, cost implications, or whether it is read-only. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured: a single-sentence summary with key tag ('triage tool — call FIRST'), followed by bullet-point output items, then parameter documentation. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though some bullet points are verbose.

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?

The output schema is missing, yet the description only vaguely states 'returns Dict with recommendations' without specifying structure or types. Given the complexity of the tool and many sibling tools, a more detailed output description would improve completeness.

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% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'prompt' as 'Text description of the desired object' and 'printer_model' as 'Optional printer model for constraints', which adds context but is minimal. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: it is a triage tool to 'ask which generation method to use' and recommends generation approach, templates, materials, constraints, and complexity. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform generation, analysis, or recommendation individually.

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 explicitly says 'call FIRST' and lists the recommendations, providing strong guidance on when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or what to do after receiving recommendations, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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