get_brand_system

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing what is returned: full token set, style guide, implementation instructions, CSS/DTCG/guide formats. No contradictory behavior is described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (full token set, style guide, implementation instructions, CSS). Given no output schema, it provides sufficient completeness for a simple retrieval tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains that the company param selects a brand and that format affects output (CSS, DTCG, guide). It also mentions defaults indirectly. This provides useful context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool returns a complete design system for a company's branding, with specific examples like Spotify and mention of 12 known systems. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_design_system' or 'list_design_systems' by focusing on brand-specific design systems.

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 implies usage in a conversational context ('Say 'Make me an app...'), but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions matching against 12 known systems, but lacks guidance on when to prefer other tools like 'list_design_systems'.

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