aura_get_design_system

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral value by describing the return payload ('Full free DESIGN.md content plus preview_html, tokens, and page URL') and by noting that chunk pages large preview_html, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what happens when neither id nor slug is supplied.

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?

Three tight fragments, front-loaded with the returned payload, with zero filler. It is slightly too telegraphic and the dangling '(see preview_info)' reference costs a point.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what happens if id and slug are both omitted, gives no value format for chunk, and cites a preview_info token not present in the provided schema.

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 coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that id and slug are interchangeable identifiers and that chunk controls paging of preview_html, which is real added meaning, but it leaves the chunk value format/limits undefined and points at an undefined 'preview_info' reference.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get design system) and enumerates the payload it returns (DESIGN.md content, preview_html, tokens, page URL), which separates it from the search-oriented siblings like aura_search_design_systems. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as aura_use_design_system or aura_search_design_systems; the agent must infer that this is the retrieval step. 'System id or slug' tells you how to address the target but not under what circumstances to choose this tool.

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