designer_get_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a complete preset including CSS example, implying a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple getter but could be more thorough.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, return contents, and available presets without unnecessary detail.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the valid preset names. It does not discuss error handling or example usage, but for a basic retrieval tool, it is nearly complete. The presence of sibling 'designer_list_presets' provides complementary 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'name' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The tool description merely repeats the enum list, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 name 'designer_get_preset' and description 'Get a complete, code-ready design token preset based on a real premium design system' clearly indicate the action (get) and resource (preset). It lists specific return contents and available presets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'designer_list_presets' which only lists them.

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 lists available presets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'designer_list_presets'. It implies usage when a preset name is known, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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