Get a foundation document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the workflow framing (read before implementing) but says nothing about the form of the returned content (markdown? length? sections?) or any constraints, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 opening clause frames the content well, but the long comma-separated enumeration largely duplicates the schema enum and pads the description. The actionable instruction is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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 single-enum-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the topical scope but not the return shape or size, which is the main thing an agent cannot infer from the schema. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's topic list essentially restates the enum values rather than adding syntax, defaults, or selection guidance, 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?

The description enumerates the subject matter ('principles, colour, dark mode, ... theming') which makes clear this returns a design-foundation document, and the closing sentence confirms the read-for-guidance intent. However, it never states the verb directly ('retrieves/returns the foundation doc for the given id') and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_overview or get_primitives.

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?

'Read the relevant foundation before implementing in that area' gives a clear triggering condition tied to the implementation workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g. vs. get_overview or get_tokens), so it is context without routing.

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