designer_get_ux_writing

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists the return content (key rule, evidence, examples) but does not mention any behavioral aspects such as idempotency, side effects, data source, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation hints.

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 that is direct and free of extraneous details. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and output. While it could be slightly restructured to highlight usage guidance, it is appropriately sized for a simple 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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, enum-driven) and the lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (key rule, evidence, do/don't examples). It does not delve into nuances like response format or level of detail, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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% with the 'topic' parameter having an enum and a basic description. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, as the enum values are self-explanatory. However, it reinforces the context by mentioning 'UX writing guideline', which aligns with the parameter's purpose.

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 'Get UX writing guideline' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further elaborates on the content: 'key rule, evidence, do/don't examples'. Among sibling tools, there is no other tool dedicated to UX writing guidelines, so it is well-distinguished.

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 a clear indication of the tool's purpose and the topic enum offers context on when to use it (e.g., for specific writing topics). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks, leaving some ambiguity.

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