get_design_principles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a read-oriented informational tool returning rules, type scale, and ratios, but it does not explicitly state the return format, side effects, or any constraints such as whether brandColor changes the returned rules.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes what the tool returns and the second gives actionable usage guidance, so every sentence earns its place.

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 simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description names the key return content and intended use. It would be more complete with a sentence about what the response contains, but for this complexity the coverage is adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as the generator's design rules, type scale, and layout ratios, and states its intended use in writing or critiquing copy. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the subject matter is obviously distinct from template listing and poster creation.

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 second sentence gives explicit use cases: 'For writing copy that fits, or critiquing output.' It does not state exclusions or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the situational context is clear.

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