design_list_brushes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and explains that custom brushes are included for a given layer, but it does not describe error behavior, pagination, or the return shape beyond the generic contents.

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 well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the optional layer scoping are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly: it lists available presets and optionally includes layer-specific custom brushes. A small gap remains around output formatting and error cases.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description restates its meaning as an optional painting:stroke layer ID used to include that layer's custom brushes. This adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (available brush presets and custom brushes), with an optional scope (a specific painting:stroke layer). It distinguishes the tool from mutation siblings like design_create_brush and design_brush_stroke by implication, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with design_list_fill_presets.

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 this is a discovery tool for brush presets and layer-specific custom brushes, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as design_list_fill_presets or design_create_brush, nor does it specify prerequisites like whether the layer must exist.

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