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 burden and does disclose the concrete return payload (DESIGN.md content, preview_html, tokens, URL), which is real behavioral value since no output schema exists. It says nothing, however, about auth requirements, what happens if neither id nor slug resolves, or error behavior on an unknown system.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the content inventory is front-loaded ahead of the key hint. The fragmentary 'System id or slug' sentence is clipped almost to the point of ambiguity, which slightly undercuts an otherwise efficient structure.

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 two-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description partially covers the gap by enumerating returned artifacts. It remains incomplete on parameter disambiguation and failure modes, which an agent would need before calling with only one of two optional keys.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. 'System id or slug' does clarify that the two parameters are alternate lookup keys rather than a required pair, which is genuine added meaning. It still does not say whether id takes precedence over slug or what happens when both are supplied (required count is 0, so all are optional).

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 states the resource (a design system, named via id or slug) and enumerates the payload returned: DESIGN.md content, preview_html, tokens, and page URL. That is enough for an agent to know this is the full-detail retrieval call. It does not, however, contrast itself with aura_search_design_systems or aura_use_design_system, so the distinction is left to inference.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus aura_search_design_systems (discovery) or aura_use_design_system (application). The only usage cue is the terse 'System id or slug' fragment, which hints at the lookup key but not the scenario. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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