research.design_package

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states the tool is non-mutating and describes the return format, including Atomic Design specs, evidence ids, and warnings. This fully conveys behavioral traits.

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 short, clear, and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the return, and ends with usage guidance. No redundant sentences.

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 complexity (4 parameters, optional simulation, no output schema), the description fully explains the tool's purpose, parameters, output structure, and non-mutating nature. It is complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema; it only repeats the optional nature of runId.

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 main action: 'Preview a research-backed vibe design package' and lists what it returns. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing to research.generate_specs and mermaid_jam.export for writing operations.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: states it is non-mutating and advises using sibling tools for writing. Also mentions an optional simulation run, giving context on when to include it.

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