designer_get_cognitive_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, though the verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious retrieval nature.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the included content. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 low complexity (one enum parameter, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what data it returns, without needing additional explanation.

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% (the single parameter 'name' has a description 'Cognitive law name'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the enum values or how to choose a law. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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: retrieving a cognitive law, and explicitly lists the content it provides (formula, key insight, UI applications, common violations, academic source). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other design concepts (e.g., designer_get_personality, designer_get_industry_rules).

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 the tool is for looking up cognitive laws based on the enum name, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like marketing_get_persuasion or ui_ux_get_principle. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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