list_design_systems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. The description adds the project scope but does not disclose additional behavior such as falling back to global design systems when projectId is empty; this is covered in the parameter schema instead of the tool description.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present, readOnly annotation), the description sufficiently captures the core purpose. Additional details like return format are covered by the output schema, and parameter behavior by the schema, so the description is complete for its context.

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?

The schema description fully covers the single parameter projectId, including its optionality and behavior when empty. The tool description does not add extra parameter information, so the schema coverage baseline 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' and the resource 'design systems' with a scope ('for a given project'), making it clear what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_screens by naming the exact resource.

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 implies usage when needing design systems for a project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool comparisons are made, so guidance is only implied from the purpose.

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