get_design_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that providing a slug augments the response with structural notes (color ratios, margins, IA), but it does not describe return format, behavior for missing/invalid slugs, or any side-effect/permission context.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the conditional slug behavior is presented immediately after.

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 simple one-optional-parameter getter, the description gives enough high-level context about default behavior and conditional output, even without an output schema. It stops short of specifying exact return structure or edge cases, but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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 for the single slug parameter is 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that supplying the slug attaches site structure notes and enumerates what those notes cover. This justifies a score above the baseline.

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 states a specific action and resource: returning the default Japan-oriented design system, with optional slug-based structural notes. This is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_jp_rules or get_reference_jsx.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only conditional information is about the optional slug parameter, which concerns invocation behavior rather than tool selection.

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