get_design_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'active local design feedback' but doesn't clarify what 'local' means (e.g., scope-level vs global), how 'active' is determined (activeOnly parameter), or any behavioral traits like whether it returns only feedback not yet applied. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it is somewhat dense and could be clearer. It front-loads the purpose, but the phrase 'so generation can reference it' adds minimal value. Overall efficient, though slightly ambiguous.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters with no output schema, and the description provides only a high-level purpose. It doesn't specify the return format, default behavior when no parameters are given, or how feedback is structured, making the tool difficult to use correctly in generation workflows.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions the three filter dimensions (scope, poster, layout) but doesn't explain the activeOnly parameter or how the parameters interact (e.g., combinations, precedence). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('active local design feedback'), and it scopes the operation by three dimensions (scope, poster, layout). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like add_design_feedback or other getters (get_center_profile, get_poster), though the unique focus on design feedback is clear.

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?

The description mentions 'so generation can reference it', implying usage context for generation workflows, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus add_design_feedback or other getters, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It gives minimal guidance on when this tool should be used.

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