design_research_collect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data sources (iTunes Search, top-grossing/top-free charts), the artifacts downloaded (screenshots and icons), the local destination path with references.json, and the important constraint that material is never uploaded. It still omits permission needs, rate limits, overwrite behavior, and error handling for a tool that writes files to disk.

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 dense sentence with arrow notation and no filler; every clause adds information about sources, actions, or destination. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The compact arrow structure is readable but slightly less immediately clear than plain prose, so not a full 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: most parameter semantics are absent, and behavioral details like permission or overwrite behavior are missing. It conveys the overall workflow but is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It mentions `terms` as the input to iTunes Search and the output path design/research/apps/<id>-<slug>/, which loosely implies `app_dir`. It says nothing about `max_apps`, `countries`, or `screenshots_per_app`, leaving three of five parameters with no semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it uses iTunes Search and genre charts to find category leaders and downloads their screenshots/icons, with a clear output location. It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes itself from generic design tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like design_research_check or design_generate, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 by framing the tool as 'Design research' and specifying that the output is 'Study material only (never uploaded).' This gives the agent a sense of when the output should be used. It does not, however, name alternative tools, specify prerequisites, or state when-not to use this tool versus siblings such as design_research_brief_template or design_research_check.

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