find_design_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool returns matching templates with full rules, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, cost, or data freshness. The behavioral impact is minimally disclosed.

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 concise with three sentences, starting with a clear action. The Args section repeats the parameter but is structured. Could be streamlined slightly, but overall efficient.

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 tool has low complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return value as 'matching templates with full rules', which is adequate but lacks details on result structure, pagination, or error handling.

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 single parameter 'use_case' is described with examples (e.g., 'enclosure', 'gear train'), which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify if the query is free text or must match exact tags, which could lead to confusion.

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 it finds design templates by use-case tags. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_design_templates and search_design_templates by specifying the search criterion, but could be more explicit about uniqueness.

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 implies when to use (when looking for templates matching a use case) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_design_templates.

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