Design guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is static reference documentation to be consulted ahead of building, but says nothing about the return shape or how the default section set behaves. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 padding: a content inventory first, then the call condition front-and-center at the end. The inventory is long but every item earns its place by telling the agent what the guide covers. Slightly dense rather than wasteful.

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?

For a read-only documentation tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description tells the agent what content exists and when to call it — enough to invoke correctly. The only gap is not noting that sections can be requested selectively, which the schema covers.

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% and the single 'sections' parameter is documented with its default in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description enumerates content categories that map loosely to the enum values but never mentions the parameter, subsetting, or the default. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource — an InstaDeck design guide — and enumerates its contents (workflow, layouts, blocks, motion, design, fonts, pitch, principles), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from a nearby sibling like get_example, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call it before creating or restyling a deck.' That tells the agent precisely when to reach for it. It stops short of 5 because it names no exclusion or explicit alternative tool to prefer in other situations.

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