Get the config schema + worked examples for a type

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the defaults represent the complete effective config when nothing is set, and the merge order (brand first, then chart config) is disclosed. It also clarifies that the response contains multiple parts, not just a schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and then the usage rule. The parenthetical about defaults ('every font, padding, color') and merge order earns its place because it clarifies a non-obvious behavior without padding.

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-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what comes back and how to use it. Nothing essential is missing: the schema, data schema, examples, defaults, merge semantics, and when to call it are all covered.

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 single parameter 'type' has 100% schema description coverage already ('e.g. "line"'). The description uses the parameter contextually as the asset type, but does not add new format, enumeration, or validation details beyond what the input schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource: the JSON Schema for the type's config, the data schema, two worked examples, and defaults. It clearly differentiates itself from create_asset by positioning this tool as the prerequisite read before first asset creation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Read this before your first create_asset of a given type.' It also tells the agent to 'read a baseline value from defaults instead of guessing it,' giving an actionable rule for applying the returned defaults.

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