get_interface_design

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads from the saved .peri.xml file and explains the timing implication (GUI must save first). It also notes that include_check runs the design check, which is a non-mutating side effect. This adds meaningful transparency.

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 concise paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose and contents. The second paragraph efficiently covers parameters and behavior. No redundant sentences or fluff; it earns its length.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it lists what is returned, explains filtering and the check option, and clarifies the data source. It does not describe the exact return format, but that's not essential given the enumerated contents and no output schema requirement.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains block_types with concrete examples (e.g. ['GPIO'] or ['PLL']) and clarifies include_check's purpose. project is self-evident. This adequately covers the parameter semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 it provides an overview of the project's Interface Designer design, enumerating specific contents (GPIO details, other blocks, I/O bank voltages). It is distinct from siblings like get_interface_block, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The verb 'get' and resource 'Interface Designer design' are implied but 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 gives usage context (reads saved file, so reflects GUI only after save) and explains the block_types filter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_interface_block or check_interface, nor when not to use it.

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