list_attached_design_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should explicitly disclose read-only safety and any other behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and details. There is no unnecessary information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format beyond 'with names'. It does not cover error cases, pagination, or prerequisites. For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete for fully informed 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'projectId' has no description in the schema. The description loosely ties the parameter to 'bound to a project' but does not specify the format, source, or constraints. The description adds minimal value for understanding the parameter.

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 action (list), the resource (design systems bound to a project), and includes an output detail (with names). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_design_systems (which likely lists all systems) and attach/detach actions.

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?

Although the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_design_systems. The description does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites, but the name and context imply its specific use case.

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