prepare_design_agent_brief

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

Describes the return structure (JSON with mission, evidenceCommands, etc.) and states it is local-first without external calls. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it discloses non-destructive, offline behavior. Does not mention side effects, but likely none.

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 concise sentences plus a returns note. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists return fields. It explains the tool's role as a preparation step and local-first nature. Could elaborate on 'cost-awareness' but overall complete for its complexity.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema; it mentions 'intent' and 'target' but no additional semantics.

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 prepares a 'cost-aware design-agent brief' for UI editing, specifying the exact verb-resource combination. It differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the first MCP call for design/audit/refactor tasks.

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 instructs to use 'as the first MCP call when a coding agent is asked to design, polish, audit, refactor, or generate interface code'. Also clarifies it is local-first and doesn't call external services, implying when not to use it.

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