List a design system's sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns only section sizes rather than prose, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It implies a read-only listing operation, though it does not explicitly mention permissions or error behavior.

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, no redundancy, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded: what it lists, the size detail, the no-download behavior, and when to call it.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the result contains (sections with sizes), what it avoids (downloading prose), and how it fits into a larger workflow. No critical invocation context is missing.

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?

The single parameter design_id is already fully described in the schema with an example, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 specific action ('List the sections of a DESIGN.md'), the resource, and the key output detail (sizes in bytes). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_design by noting it lists sections without downloading the full prose.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to choose what to read before calling get_design, so you pull one section instead of a 28KB document.' This gives the agent a concrete decision rule and names the related alternative it should precede.

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