Get MPB design validation status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the exact return vocabulary (VALID/INVALID/VERIFIED, DRAFT/INSTALLED/OUT_OF_DATE, per-section errors with refId). However, it never clarifies whether this reads cached/last-run results or performs a live validation, which is the key behavioral ambiguity next to mpb_verify_design.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three status vocabularies and the error granularity. Every clause conveys payload information; nothing is padding.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is close to complete because it sketches the return shape itself. The missing piece is the relationship to the verify/install workflow, which matters for an agent deciding when this returns fresh versus stale data.

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?

Only one parameter, designId, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself pointing to mpb_list_designs. The description adds no further meaning about the ID, which is acceptable given the schema already carries it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the exact payload: VALID/INVALID/VERIFIED, install status enums, and per-section errors with refId. This makes it clearly a status-read rather than a content read like mpb_get_design or an action like mpb_verify_design, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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. An agent must infer on its own whether to call this versus mpb_verify_design (which likely triggers validation) or mpb_install_status, and whether validation must be run first for the results to be meaningful.

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