Design score actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real domain semantics beyond that, explaining what each flag actually does (threshold fires actions above it, failCi fails CI on push, autofix dispatches fixes, autofixEnabled gates the whole auto-fix behavior). It doesn't describe error or fallback behavior when no project is configured, so it stops short of a 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?

A single dense sentence plus two short trailing fragments; the returned fields are front-loaded and the read-only nature is stated last. It is efficient with no filler, though cramming four field definitions into one sentence slightly hurts scannability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by naming all five fields and their meanings. An agent knows what it gets back and that omission of projectId is safe; only the fallback/error case is unaddressed.

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 100%, so the single projectId parameter is already fully documented including the snake_case alias. The description only restates that projectId is optional, adding no syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema; 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: it returns the design deviance score's actionable settings for one project, and enumerates the specific fields returned (threshold, failCi, autofix, autofixEnabled, canEdit). It does not explicitly name the write counterpart set_design_settings, but 'Read-only' implicitly frames it against that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side of the settings pair and that projectId scopes it to one project or falls back to the server-configured one. There is no explicit 'use this when... / use set_design_settings when...' routing, which would matter given the paired write tool in the sibling list.

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