Retrieve design guidelines and best practices for generative art topics, with optional renderer-specific guidance, to inform implementation decisions.
Return design guidelines and best practices for a topic (Phase 5)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Guideline topic | |
| renderer | No | Renderer-specific guidance |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state whether it has side effects, requires permissions, or whether results are project-specific or global. It also does not explain the meaning of 'Phase 5'.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted detail. '(Phase 5)' is minor noise that could be removed or explained. Overall it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not describe the return format or how guidelines differ by renderer, and it leaves '(Phase 5)' unexplained.
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%, with both parameters fully enumerated and described in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how topic and renderer interact or what the topic values represent. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource: 'Return design guidelines and best practices for a topic.' This is clear enough to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as design_get_style or design_list_recipes, and '(Phase 5)' is unexplained.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. '(Phase 5)' hints at a workflow stage but is not explained, and there is no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool. The agent must infer usage from the name and enum topics alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.