mcp__getDesignSvgs

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

Since there are no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool retrieves cached data, implying a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. It also describes the caching behavior and the mapping from path IDs to SVG strings. No contradictory or missing critical traits.

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 relatively concise with a few focused sentences. The most important information (prerequisite, purpose, and usage) is front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition, though it could be slightly shortened.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format (map of ids to SVG strings) and how to integrate into HTML. It also mentions caching. Missing some error conditions (e.g., if sections not fetched) but overall adequate for the complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the two invocation methods (fileId+layerId vs shortLink) already present in the schema, and does not add new insights or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 explains that the tool retrieves cached SVG HTML strings after fetching design sections. It mentions the prerequisite tool (mcp__getDesignSections) and how to use the output (look up id in svgs map, insert svgHtml). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mcp__extractSvg, which might also deal with SVGs.

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?

Provides explicit usage sequence: call after mcp__getDesignSections. Also offers two input alternatives (fileId+layerId or shortLink) and explains how to use the returned data. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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