Check a template design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses conditional return behavior — that template id, name, mapping and preview URL only appear once the design is complete — but says nothing about the not-yet-complete case (pending status, errors), auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary output (status) and then qualifies the conditional extras. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-shape information. It names the returned fields but does not enumerate possible status values or explain the incomplete-state response, leaving a meaningful gap for a status tool.

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 100% and the schema already states design_id is 'Design id returned by design_template.' The description adds no further meaning about the id's format or provenance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (a design), and even enumerates the payload it returns (status, template id, name, mapping, preview URL). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like design_template or get_job, so an agent must infer that design_template is the producer and this is the status poller.

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 phrase 'when complete' implies this is a polling/status-check tool rather than a fetch of a finished artifact, which gives implied usage. However, it never states when to call it versus design_template, render_template, or get_job, and gives no polling cadence or terminal-condition guidance.

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