get_design_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in describing how it behaves beyond the basic purpose.

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 'Get design system documentation' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks context on behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a tool in a set with multiple documentation-related siblings, this leaves the agent with incomplete information to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't mislead or omit parameter information.

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 'Get design system documentation' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('design system documentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'design system documentation' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_doc_structure' or 'read_doc', which might have overlapping functions. It avoids being a tautology of the name but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_doc_structure', 'get_domain_examples', and 'read_doc', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool for retrieving documentation-related information.

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