research_design_package

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

Clearly states the tool is non-mutating, which is a key behavioral trait. Describes the return object structure. With no annotations, this is good coverage, though it could elaborate on potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second covers return details and alternatives. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, return, and key sibling differentiation. Could elaborate on how the optional simulation run affects the package. No output schema, but return shape is described. Adequate for agent decision-making.

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 additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema descriptions. No extra guidance on parameter combinations or constraints.

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?

Description specifies the action 'Preview' and the resource 'research-backed vibe design package from ResearchStore V2 plus an optional simulation run'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings 'research_generate_specs' and 'mermaid_jam_export' by stating their different purposes.

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 this tool (preview, non-mutating) and provides specific alternative tools for writing specs ('research_generate_specs') and exporting FigJam files ('mermaid_jam_export'). Also mentions the optional simulation run context.

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