list_design_systems

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior: it returns a browsable list of available systems, applies optional filters, and treats 'user' as a category for saved personal systems. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a listing tool the annotations plus filter semantics are strong.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states core purpose, the second enumerates valid filter values. It is front-loaded and every clause adds 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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, an idempotent/read-only annotation, and no output schema. The description is complete for deciding whether and how to invoke it. Slightly more context about what fields each returned item contains would push this to a 5, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description repeats the category filter set and adds the 'search' semantics, providing marginal value over the schema without needing to compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('list'), a resource ('design systems'), and the available filters ('category' and 'search'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the related sibling 'get_design_system' (singular fetch vs. plural browse) and 'list_design_system_components' (a different resource).

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 makes the core use case explicit—browsing available design systems before selecting one—and spells out the two supported filtering modes. It does not explicitly state when one should use get_design_system or list_design_system_components instead, but the intent to enumerate available systems is unambiguous.

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