get_design_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, and the description lists returned design fields, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permission requirements, or rate limits. The implied read-only nature and return summary justify a 3, not higher.

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 short sentences/paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose then usage then returns. No filler; appropriately sized.

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 single-parameter getter with a full input schema and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, and return summary. Nothing critical is missing 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 coverage is 100% and already documents file_id with source and example. The description repeats the source as search_designs, adding only the specific sibling tool name; this is marginal over schema, so baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb 'Get detailed information' and resource 'design application'; distinguishes from search_designs by requiring a specific file ID and from sibling get_*_details by resource. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent from search_designs to this tool via the fileId, establishing a clear retrieval workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-use or alternative selection guidance, so a 4 rather than 5.

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