Get a complete AI Canvas design system (every file)

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the response contains every file and shared tokens/utilities, which implies a comprehensive bulk retrieval. No contradictions and no missing critical behavior for a read-only operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence serves a purpose. Very concise and well structured.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what it returns and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description clarifies the content type (files, components, tokens).

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%, and the schema already describes the slug parameter with an example and a pointer to list_systems for discovery. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline expectation.

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 states the tool returns all files for a design system, including components, tokens, and utilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve individual components (get_component) or templates (get_template) by emphasizing the whole-system scope.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the user wants to adopt a whole system rather than pick individual components. It clearly implies the alternative use case for component-level retrieval, though it does not name the specific sibling tool.

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