prepare_design_agent_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it is local-first and does not call Figma, browsers, or models. It also outlines the return structure. It could mention error handling or permissions, but the provided context is sufficient for understanding scope.

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, front-loaded with purpose and return structure. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides key context: when to use, what it returns (list of fields), and its local-first nature. It could detail the return JSON fields more, but the current level is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema; it says 'cost-aware' and 'brief' but does not elaborate on parameter usage.

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 editing UI, specifying the return structure (JSON with several fields) and use cases (design, polish, audit, refactor, generate). It distinguishes itself by being the 'first MCP call'.

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: 'as the first MCP call when a coding agent is asked to design, polish, audit, refactor, or generate interface code.' However, it does not mention when not to use or provide comparisons to sibling tools like 'analyze_design' or 'audit_interface_craft'.

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