Get Poietic design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, the full JSON shape is disclosed, and the warning that duplicate names 'resolve arbitrarily upstream' exposes a meaningful behavioral caveat. It also documents that this tool supersedes `list` and `show`.

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 compact and front-loaded: action, output shape, then useful caveats. Every sentence adds value, and the legacy replacement note plus ID guidance are included without bloat.

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 the simple optional parameter, the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it defines the top-level response, node/edge shapes, default context, legacy behavior, and a key resolution warning. An agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents the single `design` parameter with 100% coverage, including its default behavior. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that it reads the 'current' design, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read the current Poietic design as normalized JSON.' It then names the exact output structure, which distinguishes it from export/format siblings like poietic_export_svg or poietic_export_plane, and explicitly says it 'Replaces `list` and `show`.'

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 clearly indicates this is for reading the current normalized design and calls out that it replaces `list` and `show`. It also gives practical guidance to prefer numeric IDs over names. It does not explicitly compare against many sibling tools, but the read-vs-export distinction is clear enough.

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