design_capture_composite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states it, does not say whether the call is read-only or produces/refreshes a composite, and does not disclose the return shape (image vs. structured info) — a notable gap since there is no output schema. The sibling pointer is the only added behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the capability statement is front-loaded before the alternative route. Nothing to trim.

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 a single optional param and no annotations or output schema, the definition covers calling context but leaves the biggest unknown undefined: what 'info' actually comes back. For a tool with no output schema, one clause on the return content would materially improve it.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%: the schema already documents sketchId and its '(default: selected sketch)' behavior. The description adds nothing about the ID beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific resource (the design layer composite for a sketch) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling capture_screenshot, so the agent can tell which to pick. The verb 'Get info about' is vague, though — it never says whether the return is image data, a layer composite descriptor, or metadata, which matters for a tool whose name implies a capture.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'For full visual capture use capture_screenshot.' It stops short of stating positively when this tool should be used (e.g. 'use when you need layer/composite metadata rather than a rendered image'), but the exclusion is clear enough to route correctly.

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