get_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' which is transparent about mutability, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or return format beyond 'editable content fields'. Adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately conveys the key trait (Read-only) and the action. Highly efficient.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description provides basic completeness. However, it lacks guidance on distinguishing from other read-like siblings (e.g., list_designs) and does not specify what 'editable content fields' entails for the response.

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 100% with a single parameter 'design_id' described as 'ID of the design to retrieve'. The description adds 'including editable content fields' which hints at return content but doesn't enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applied.

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 retrieves a SendGrid Design Library design, includes 'Read-only' to emphasize safe usage, and specifies 'including editable content fields' to differentiate from simpler retrievals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_design, update_design, delete_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 description labels the tool as 'Read-only', implying it should not be used for modifications, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_designs or get_pre_built_design. No exclusion or alternative hints given.

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