get_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the call returns a summary plus branch list and "Fetch" implies read-only behavior, but it says nothing about permissions, missing-design errors, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. The trailing "workshop detail view" is mildly vague but does not undermine the compact structure.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description helpfully names what is returned (summary + branch list). It is still incomplete on how design_id should be sourced and what happens when the design is absent, which matters in a crowded design-tool namespace.

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 required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should clarify it. Instead, "single design" only restates the schema, leaving the ID's source or format unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a single design's summary + branch list") and even enumerates the returned content, so the purpose is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling reads like get_design_version, get_design_source, or inspect_design.

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 phrase "for the workshop detail view" implies a usage context, but the description never states when to use this instead of alternatives such as get_design_version or inspect_design. The agent must infer the selection rule from the sibling names alone.

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