find_design_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or return type. While 'Find' implies a read operation, the description fails to confirm read-only behavior or any other traits like rate limits or scope (e.g., public vs user-specific).

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 extremely concise with one sentence and a clear argument block. Every part is useful: the verb, resource, parameter name, and examples. No unnecessary repetition. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has only one required parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's intent. However, it omits what the returned summaries contain (e.g., text, images) and how to proceed after finding one. Still, for a simple search tool, it is mostly complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'use_case'. The description compensates by providing concrete examples ('enclosure', 'gear train', 'battery cover', 'vase'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition. However, it does not specify format or allowed values.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('public design-template summaries') with a specific filter ('for a use case'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_design_templates' by emphasizing 'public' and 'summaries', and from 'list_design_templates' by requiring a use case parameter.

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 you need to find templates for a specific design task) but does not explicitly guide when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_design_templates' or 'list_design_templates_catalog'. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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