design_get_paint_field

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload type (VectorField JSON) and implies a non-mutating read, which is real value. It is silent on what is returned when the layer has no paint field, whether layerId must reference a paint-type layer, and any error/auth behavior.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and returned artifact front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the returned artifact's type, which is the key missing piece elsewhere. However, it leaves the null/empty case and the 'must be a paint layer' precondition unstated, gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 parameter (layerId) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds a modest constraint by saying the layer is a 'painting layer', narrowing valid layerId values, but offers no ID format or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the VectorField JSON for a painting layer.' An agent can tell this is a read of paint-field data rather than layer metadata (design_get_layer) or a mutation (design_update_paint_field). It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 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 phrase 'for inspection or editing' implies the read-before-write workflow, hinting that design_update_paint_field is the follow-up for edits, but no alternative is named and no precondition is stated. Usage is only inferable, not directed.

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