Load component declarations and design tokens from a local DESIGN.md file to provide consistent design specs for UI development.
Read component declarations and tokens from a local DESIGN.md file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_dir | No | Project directory with a configured design-system source | |
| design_file_path | No | Direct path to DESIGN.md; overrides project configuration |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It adds the useful context that the tool operates on a local file, but no further behavioral traits like missing-file handling or output expectations are disclosed.
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 one concise sentence with no filler. The key verb, resource, and source are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
The schema and annotations provide enough to invoke the tool, but the absence of an output schema and any mention of the return payload leaves a gap. The description also does not clarify how this relates to the very similar 'read_design_md' and 'list_design_system_components' tools.
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% and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 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 clear action ('Read'), a specific target ('component declarations and tokens'), and a precise source ('local DESIGN.md file'). It is easy to understand, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like read_design_md or list_design_system_components.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many design-system read/list siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.