read_my_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the compact default field set, that VECTOR children are skipped by default, and that verbose returns the raw REST dump. It omits auth/permission needs and any error or pagination behavior, but for a read tool the disclosed output semantics are solid.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before defaults, the VECTOR caveat, the verbose flag, and the sibling routing. No wasted words; every clause conveys a distinct fact.

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 and no annotations, the description is responsible for describing what comes back, and it does so well (default fields, omission rules, verbose escape hatch). It could be more complete on return shape limits or permissions, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description largely restates what the schema says (excludeTypes: [] to include vectors, verbose for the raw dump) rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, 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+resource ('Compact layout-aware summary of the current selection') and enumerates the default field coverage, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_selection, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear condition ('when you only need structure') and names the alternative (get_selection) to avoid chaining. It does not mention when NOT to use it or the other related readers (get_selection_context, get_node_info), so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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