research.design_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'non-mutating' and describes the return value structure ('Returns on success: { package } with brief, Atomic Design specs...'). This gives good behavioral transparency, though it could mention any side effects or rate limits, but none are expected for a preview tool.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains return, third gives usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters (all explained in schema), no output schema (description compensates by describing return structure), and no annotations. The description covers purpose, return value, and usage guidelines adequately for a preview tool. It is complete given the available context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it restates 'optional simulation run' and 'optional ResearchStore JSON string' which are already in schema descriptions. No extra parameter meaning is provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'Preview a research-backed vibe design package from ResearchStore V2 plus an optional simulation run.' It uses a specific verb (Preview) and resource (research-backed vibe design package), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'non-mutating' and directing to research.generate_specs for writing.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'This tool is non-mutating; call research.generate_specs to write specs or mermaid_jam.export to write FigJam source files.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (previewing) vs alternatives for writing, which is excellent guidance.

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