get_cached_design

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. It only states 'Retrieve,' leaving behavioral traits like idempotency and data sensitivity unaddressed.

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 very concise with two short sentences and front-loaded purpose. However, the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema and consumes space that could be used for more useful guidance.

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 no output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., design data or metadata) and possible error conditions. It provides none, leaving an agent unaware of the response format or failure scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'design_id' is 'The cached design's identifier,' but does not explain how to obtain it, its format, or any validation rules. The schema only defines type string.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'cached design' clearly indicate the tool's function. The name differentiates from siblings like 'list_cached_designs' (list vs single) and 'cache_design' (store vs retrieve), though it does not explicitly contrast with 'get_cached_model'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_cached_designs' or 'cache_design'. The description omits any context about prerequisites or selection criteria.

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