design_systems_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it states the tool is read-only, validates caller-supplied JSON, never fetches URLs, reads/writes files, or executes corpus content. It also describes the return value as 'byte-capped context plus inclusion counts.'

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, follow with constraints, and end with usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the two modes, the constraints (read-only, no side effects), and the return type. No output schema is necessary because the return is adequately described.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by explaining the two modes and the role of 'entries' for mode=corpus, which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on all parameters, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Normalize design-systems-mcp corpus data into compact, deterministic agent context.' It uses a specific verb ('normalize') and resource ('corpus data'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pull_design_system' which are likely for retrieval.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use mode=corpus with a native manifest plus filename-keyed entries, or mode=category with the proposed category-manifest/v1 envelope.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do (e.g., no URL fetching). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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