get_design_process

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes checklist and deliverables, which indicates informational content, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or describes any side effects. For a 'get' tool, this is serviceable but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists phases and inclusions with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains both purpose and content (checklist and deliverables). It does not specify the exact format of the checklist/deliverables, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already describes the parameter as 'Design process phase to get guidance for' with an enum listing all values. The tool description repeats the phases but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the verb 'Get guidance' and the resource 'design process phase', enumerating the specific phases (discovery, prototyping, build, live). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_principles or get_testing_plan by focusing on process phases rather than other design concepts.

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 when phase-specific guidance is needed, but it offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives like get_testing_plan. The context is clear but no exclusions are provided.

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