design_suggest_focal_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Return' implies a read-only computation, but it doesn't say whether anything is drawn on the canvas, whether a sketch must be open, or what coordinate space (normalized 0-1 vs pixels) the focal points are in — the latter is critical for using the result.

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 tightly-worded sentence with the action and its input front-loaded. Efficient, though it omits rather than wastes words.

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-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should hint at the shape of the returned coordinates (count of points per system, coordinate space) so the agent knows what it will get back.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter already documents its four values plus the 'thirds' default, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies; it doesn't explain how the systems differ in output.

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 + resource: returns focal point coordinates for the current canvas, parameterized by a composition system. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like design_add_composition_guide (which draws guides) or design_suggest_flow_path (which suggests a path), though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus design_add_composition_guide or design_suggest_flow_path, and no stated precondition such as needing an open/active canvas. The agent must infer that 'current canvas' means the active sketch.

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