design_system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'inspect' and 'preflight' and describes the outputs (bundle version, recipes, fonts, readiness), giving the agent a strong sense of what to expect. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the wording implies no mutation, which is adequate for this tool type.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every clause adds value (action, return data, usage timing). No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the return fields, covering the essential behavioral contract. It does not detail error conditions or interpretation of readiness, but for a status/preflight tool with one optional param, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with the 'reload' parameter fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's action ('Inspect', 'run dependency preflight') and specific resource ('configured portable design-system bundle'). It lists the exact return values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like figma_status and design_system_assets.

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?

Explicit instructions to call before generating design-system-compliant work provide clear use context. While no alternatives or exclusions are named, the timing and purpose are unambiguous, so this meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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