Get a Project's Tuned Design Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral point that values change when the user tunes them, hence the re-read instruction. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. project not yet tuned or unknown projectId), leaving a small gap against the annotation-covered baseline.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the identity/payload statement front-loaded before the call-timing guidance. Every clause earns its place by either defining scope or directing invocation.

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 usefully lists the returned fields, which is the main burden it must carry. It stops short of stating what is returned when a project has no tuned config or what happens on an invalid projectId, a minor omission for a simple read tool.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including that context is analytics-only and does not affect the result. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

Specific verb (Read) plus a tightly scoped resource (the user-tuned design config of a generated project), with the payload enumerated: exact color tokens, radius, fonts, icon library, layout density. The 'user-tuned' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling kit/system tools such as get-design-system-kit and find-design-system, and pairs it implicitly with set-design-config.

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 explicit triggers: before building or restyling UI, and again after the user tunes values on the project page. It also states the reason to prefer it over guessing from adjectives, which is exactly the failure mode an agent would otherwise fall into.

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