get_design_system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the notion that output is an 'original' system not drawn from a reference library, which is mildly useful context but discloses nothing about what the returned artifacts contain, their scope, or whether any input is required beyond the id.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded, so it is compact. But the trailing 'without copying a reference library' clause is a negative behavioral aside that occupies real estate without advancing the reader's understanding of the 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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description adequately states what is returned (style system, tokens, DESIGN.md) and no output schema is needed. It is incomplete on the one thing it must carry itself — the meaning of the 'id' parameter — and the audience sits amid many similar-sounding siblings.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description is the only place that could explain what the id identifies and where it comes from. It says nothing about the parameter, meaning the agent must guess whether id is a template id, design-system id, or generated identifier.

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 verb 'Get' plus resources (style system, tokens, DESIGN.md) gives a rough sense of a retrieval tool, and the DESIGN.md/tokens mention loosely distinguishes it from get_design_tokens. However, the phrase 'without copying a reference library' is a behavioral constraint rather than a purpose statement and muddles what 'original style system' actually means, leaving the reader to infer the resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the siblings (get_design_tokens, generate_design_document, search_templates). The clause 'without copying a reference library' hints at a constraint but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice over lookalikes.

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