extract_design_context

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clarifies the scope of extraction and the intended downstream purpose, but it never explicitly states whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the screen, or what the output shape is. 'Extracts' suggests a read operation, but that is implicit rather than disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and a concrete list of extracted elements; the second gives the practical purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 read-style extraction tool with two required IDs and four optional boolean toggles, the description plus 100% schema coverage is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any statement about return format or side effects, which would matter more given there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds a high-level mapping to the extraction dimensions, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extracts') and a clear resource ('design DNA from an existing screen'), then enumerates concrete dimensions such as colors, typography, spacing, layout patterns, and component styles. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like extract_components or generate_design_tokens.

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?

The description provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to maintain visual consistency across multiple screens.' This is clear context for when an agent should select the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or directly compare against alternatives such as apply_design_context or generate_design_tokens.

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