get_design_template_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation retrieving design rules, but does not state explicitly that it is safe, idempotent, or free of side effects. Authentication or state dependencies are not addressed.

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, well-structured with bullet points, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains input and output. It covers what the tool returns but omits error handling or behavior for invalid template IDs, which is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by listing the possible template IDs (e.g., snap_fit_cantilever, press_fit) in the Args section, which helps the agent select a valid input. However, it does not describe syntax or format beyond the list.

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 tool 'gets detailed design rules for a functional design template,' listing specific outputs like dimensional constraints and material compatibility. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as 'find_design_templates' by focusing on retrieving rules for a specific template rather than listing templates.

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 usage when needing detailed rules for a specific template, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'find_design_templates' or 'search_design_templates.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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