design_list_blend_modes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the shape of the return content (mode names plus descriptions and usage guidance), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor whether the list is exhaustive or filtered.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action (list blend modes) and then the payload detail (descriptions and usage guidance). Nothing repeats the tool name verbatim without adding 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?

For a zero-parameter enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned well enough to call safely. It could be stronger by telling the agent to consult this before setting a blend mode, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The sentence correctly implies the call is unconditional with no filtering inputs.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: lists all available blend modes, and adds that each entry includes a description and usage guidance, which tells the agent what a result row looks like. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (design_set_blend_mode), but the list/set distinction is unambiguous from the names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this before design_set_blend_mode to discover valid mode names, but the description never says so, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It is the minimum viable guidance for a discovery tool.

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