Get the Ridvay design-authoring guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as returning a design guide and implies it is a read-only operation, but does not detail permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first states what it returns, the second provides the usage context. No extraneous information.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains its role among siblings (get_design_guide is a prerequisite for create_poster). It lists key components of the returned guide, though a full format specification is not provided.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params). The description adds context by explaining the purpose and contents of the returned data, which compensates for the lack of an output 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 states explicitly that the tool returns the Ridvay design IR format including JSON contract, element types, fonts, backgrounds, and a worked example. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (like create_poster) by positioning itself as a prerequisite step.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Always call this before your first create_poster call.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list conditions when not to use it or alternatives.

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