get_design_guidance

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it is an incremental reference, contains server-specific facts (corporate template behavior and renderer font width), and exposes a 'sections' listing when called with no argument. No side effects are implied or hidden.

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 longer than average but front-loaded with the core purpose and usage instruction. The middle enumeration of covered topics is slightly verbose but earns its place by telling the agent what the tool can resolve. The parameter guidance is compact and actionable.

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?

With an output schema present and a read-only annotation, the description covers everything else: what the tool provides, when to consult it, how to navigate sections, and which server-specific caveats matter. An agent can call this tool correctly without external help.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does: omit 'section' for the whole document, name one for a specific section, and call with no argument to discover section names. This is complete semantic guidance for correct invocation.

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 opens with a clear purpose ('How to make the deck look like someone designed it') and enumerates its scope: deck structure, layout, type scale, colour, charts, tables, and visual habits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it carries what the individual tools cannot, making its role as a cross-cutting guidance tool unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit timing: read before planning a deck and re-read when hitting a covered decision. It also explains the parameter navigation pattern—omit for whole document, name a section, or call once with no argument to list section names—giving the agent a precise call sequence.

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