designer_resolve_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool resolves a description into design intent, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, error handling, required permissions, or whether multiple calls produce consistent results. The output list is mentioned but not the nature of the resolution process.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output components. It is not verbose and front-loads the main action. However, it could be structured to separate input, output, and usage tips.

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?

Considering no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and output fields. However, it lacks details on expected input quality, handling of missing options, or what constitutes a valid product description. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema; it only enumerates the output attributes. Baseline 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 description clearly states the verb 'resolve' applied to a product description, and lists the specific attributes of the design intent output (industry, personality, style, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like designer_get_personality or designer_list_presets, which are about retrieving existing presets or personality definitions, not resolving a description into a full intent.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as designer_get_personality or designer_generate_design_brief. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where the tool is inappropriate. The usage is implied but not clarified.

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