Plan relevant UX principles

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by noting the output should be treated as decision prompts and lists specific return components.

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: first sentence states purpose and inputs, second sentence states outputs and a caveat. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (design questions, steps, etc.) and adds a usage caveat. It could mention default behavior for 'limit' or 'locale', but overall is complete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'outcome, surface, phase, principle ids' which map to four of six parameters, but omits 'limit' and 'locale'. Without full coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 selects a set of UX principles based on specific criteria (outcome, surface, phase, IDs) and lists the return elements. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_design_principle_plan' by focusing on UX principles and including evidence labels.

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 implies usage through input criteria but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'recommend_design_direction' are not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer.

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