Get a complete AI Canvas design-system template (every file)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context that it aggregates all files (composition + components + tokens) and mentions a CLI command for installation. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every clause adds meaningful information (scope, usage examples, installation hint). There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with good annotations, the description explains what it does and when to use it well. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from stating the return format (e.g., files as URLs or inline content), which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the slug parameter is already described with examples and a pointer to list_templates. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond re-stating that a 'single template' is fetched, which is already present in the 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 leads with 'Return all files for a single template' and specifies that it includes 'the example composition plus every component it uses plus shared tokens'. This clearly articulates the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_component or list_templates.

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?

It explicitly states user intents: 'Use for "I want exactly this dashboard" / "give me the entire mission-control screen"'. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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