get_design_source

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'retrieve' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, or error handling (e.g., if design not found). Lacks detail on side effects or constraints.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded: two sentences plus an Args block. The Args section largely duplicates the schema, but the main part is efficient. Could be slightly more concise by removing redundant Args, but overall well-structured.

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 lists return values (source, prompt, provider), adding useful context. For a simple retrieval with one parameter, the description covers the essentials. Lacks mention of any potential limitations or edge cases, but sufficient for typical use.

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 has one parameter (design_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'ID of the cached design', providing context that it's a cached design ID, which helps disambiguate. However, no format or validation details are given, leaving room for improvement.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves parametric source code for a cached design, using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_cached_design' or 'get_design_version' by focusing on source code retrieval.

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?

Implies usage for regeneration, tweaking, or inspection via return values, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'get_cached_design' or 'cache_design_with_source'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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